PC 11-14-2023 Written CommunicationsFrom:Gill Doyle
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Emi Sugiyama; Bonnie Libby; Vic Menon; Denise; C F; cathyktang@yahoo.com; Bindeeya Desai; Howard
Wolnowsky; Howard & Janet
Subject:G. Doyle"s comment for Nov. 14 public hearing
Date:Thursday, November 9, 2023 4:47:03 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.
I had hoped to read this "History of Our Struggle" at the November 14 Planning Commission
meeting. The three minutes allowed to me there would not be sufficient, and so I submit this
now via email in hopes that the planning division might be interested in knowing what this
neighborhood has endured since CUSD saw fit to install Tessellations here.
My name is Gill Doyle. I've helped lead the neighborhood's campaign for residential
permit parking around the school. Let me quote what I think might be my first
communication with Tessellations and the city regarding the Tessellations parking problem.
This is an email dated August 10:
"I live on the southwest corner of Folkestone and Yorkshire — right across from your
office. Your staff have begun to park on Yorkshire and Folkestone, and this of course
presents a problem for the people living on those streets, since our view of the street
is obstructed when we pull our cars out of our driveways. I dealt with this to some
extent when Regnart Elementary was operating, though not on a daily basis, as the
case now seems to be.
"It's my impression that California law requires schools to provide sufficient parking
for staff, visitors, and students. You have 43 parking spaces in the lot on Yorkshire.
That would probably not be adequate even if you didn't have 14 minibuses parked
there. It seems to me that you should build more parking — perhaps to the south of
the baseball diamond.
"I'm happy to have your school in our neighborhood, and I'm pleased to see the
improvements that you're making. Additional parking would be another great
improvement.
- Your neighbor, Gill Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive)"
Five days earlier, on Saturday August 5, I attended an open house at the school.
Tessellations had invited the neighbors to take a look at the refurbished facility and to
ask questions, if we had any. I walked over to take a look. I had a pleasant
conversation with one member of the staff. I didn't have many questions, but this staff
member had a question for me: Would the street parking be a problem for me? I told
her that it would not be a problem — that I had lived for thirty years across from
Regnart School and was used to parent volunteers parking, from time to time, in front
of my house. One such parent would occasionally leave her car for as long as a
week at a time while she presumably traveled out of town. When I answered that way
on August 5, I wasn't anticipating the size of the problem that we would see when
school opened a few days later.
The problem was at its worst during the first couple weeks after the school opened.
On the first day of school, my wife and I looked out our door to see two big vehicles
— a pickup truck and an SUV — parked on either side of our driveway. It was this
way up and down Folkestone and on Yorkshire, in front of the school. Tessellations
says that it has 75 staff members. The existing lot in front of the school has just
43 spaces in it (if the 4 handicap spaces are not included in the count). If
Tessellations did not build additional parking, then some staff would have to park on
the street. Tessellations must have known this when it leased the school, and that,
no doubt, was why I was asked at the open house how I felt about street parking.
The thirty or so staff cars that were parked every day, all day, on Folkestone and
Yorkshire immediately became a problem for the neighbors and, potentially, for the
kids who transit these streets on their way to and from Kennedy Middle School and
Monta Vista High School. The kids were our first concern. On every school day, in
the morning, kids come flying down Yorkshire on their bikes and e-scooters. They
blow through the stop sign at the corner and turn up Folkestone. In the afternoon
they come down Folkestone, often in gangs of five or eight, and whip around the
corner, onto Yorkshire. With a vehicle on either side of her driveway — sometimes a
big vehicle like an SUV or a pickup — a neighbor, backing her car out of her
driveway, had no way to know whether a car or a flock of e-bikes was headed her
way. When one of our neighbors up the street complained one morning to a teacher
who had parked his car by her driveway the young man, trying to be helpful,
suggested that she back her car into her driveway so that she would have a better
chance, if she went out during the school day, of laying eyes on a car or e-scooter
before it hit her. Sometime later, when that same neighbor asked the police to come
out and ticket a car that had partially blocked her driveway, the motorcycle cop made
the same suggestion: Back your car into your garage. Well, I know from experience
that not everyone can back his car into his driveway without frightening a pedestrian
on the sidewalk or hitting a garage wall. For some of us, driving forward is already a
challenge. I wouldn't go advising people I didn't know to try driving in reverse. In
response to complaints, Grace Stanat, founder and principal at Tessellations, asked
his staff to leave more space between their cars and our driveways. When a different
neighbor, on August 30, complained to Grace Stanat and Mayor Hung Wei about a
car that had partially blocked her driveway, Hung Wei asked Captain Velasquez of
the Sheriff's Department to come out and ticket such cars. After that, the situation
improved, but the cars remained on our streets.
Getting out of driveways was not the only problem. With cars parked on both sides of
Folkestone and Yorkshire, simply driving down those streets became more difficult.
One young teacher parked his car every day on the northwest corner of the
Folkestone-Yorkshire intersection. Neighbors complained about how difficult it was to
thread their way between that blue car and the pedestrian sign that is planted in the
pavement in the middle of Folkestone. Cars that were unable to thread the needle
ran over that sign until the bolts that held it down finally let go. New holes were drilled
in the pavement, and new bolts were put in place to secure the sign.
Even for someone like me — a youth of 74 — making the turn onto Yorkshire was
difficult, with cars parked on either side of the road. If two cars passed on the road,
then there was very little space, with four cars abreast on a two-lane road. One of our
older neighbors told me that he would simply have to stop in the middle of the road if
he happened to be driving down that stretch of Yorkshire and saw a car coming
toward him. He would stop and wait until the other car passed. At his age, he
couldn't trust that he would be able to thread the needle.
In order to address this parking problem, the neighbors began by asking CUSD and
Tessellations to build more parking at the school. California Code of Regulations,
Title 5 requires that "parking spaces are sufficient for staff, visitors, and students."
When I talked to Chris Jew about this (Chris Jew is CUSD's chief business officer), he
responded as follows: "Regarding your reference to Title 5, these are standards and
requirements for new schools being built. When Regnart was first built in the late
1960's, it was built in accordance with the parking requirements at that time. Traffic
safety around our school properties is a traffic enforcement item that would be better
addressed by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office." [August 24 email]
While standing in front of my house one day with Mayor Hung Wei, who had come out
to take a look at the parking problem, Grace Stanat crossed the street to talk to us. I
asked him if he was going to build additional parking at the school. We had already
exchanged emails about this. I couldn't get a straight answer from him. I asked the
question three times, finally lost my composure, and rudely walked away from him. In
an email that followed that meeting, Grace explained that he and his staff were busy
and didn't have the money to build more parking, which they estimated would cost
them $250,000. But they would look into it, he said.
The neighbors came up with a number of creative solutions to Tessellations' parking problem.
These were passed on to Grace Stanat or Caroline Gupta, director of operations at the school.
I suggested that Tessellations consider putting more parking south of the baseball diamond.
My wife suggested that Tessellation convert the lawn in front of the school, with its row of
mature sweet-gum trees, to a parking lot. We asked Tessellations to consider moving its 14
minibuses off-site. None of these suggestions were deemed by Tessellations to be feasible.
There were neighbors who thought that there was space for parking on the north side of
campus — near the portable classrooms, behind the maintenance gate. Before Tessellations
signed its lease, Richard Lowenthal's 7-11 Committee had considered what to do with the
property. They had discussed moving the district office to the site. If that were done,
additional parking would be needed, the committee realized. The area behind the north
maintenance gate was identified by the committee as a place where cars could be parked. But
when CUSD finally handed the property to Tessellations, no such inquiry about parking
requirements was undertaken. No one thought to ask about the size of Tessellations' staff or
how large Tessellations planned to grow its school. When Tessellations moved in, rather than
park cars there behind the north maintenance gate, near the portables, Tessellations instead
ripped up some of the asphalt in that area and planted grass.
With a sense that neither CUSD nor Tessellations would prioritize additional parking at the
school, the Folkestone neighbors met and decided that residential permit parking was our only
recourse. City engineers suggested that the permit parking zone be expanded to include
Yorkshire and Stafford. Later we added Yorkshire Court. We gathered signatures. Two-
thirds of the residents in the proposed permit parking zone would have to sign on. Concern in
the neighborhood was such that 80% of the neighbors signed on. 55 of the 68 households
signed on. Of the 13 that didn't sign on, not all were opposed to permit parking. Some —
absentee landlords or people who just don't open their doors to strangers — simply couldn't
be reached. On October 9 we paid the permit parking study fee that would authorize city
engineers to begin their feasibility study. Later that week Tessellations suddenly pulled its
cars off our streets. This both pleased and mystified the neighbors. We assumed that our
permit parking drive had finally made Tessellations understand that the neighbors here are
serious about wanting a permanent solution to the parking problem around the school. Now,
though, I suspect that it may actually have been the city's conditional use permit with its
required minimum number of on-site parking spaces that caused those cars to disappear from
our streets.
Where had the cars gone? A neighbor reported that she had seen some of the 14 minibuses
parked at New Life Church on McClellan. Another neighbor reported seeing cars parked on
grass and asphalt behind the north maintenance gate. Now some of the minibuses are parked
on the lawn in front of the school, beneath the sweet-gums there, where my wife had
suggested that Tessellations add parking. A neighbor told me that some of the staff are
parking off-site and are being shuttled to and from the school.
This is the history of our experience with Tessellations street parking. So long as there is
insufficient parking at Tessellations for staff, visitors, and students, it's realistic to expect that
there will always be some Tessellations staff and visitors parked on our streets. I wonder
whether the city can enforce compliance with its minimum required number of parking spaces
on campus. Can it guarantee that Tessellations will build additional permanent parking on
campus and then actually use that parking? Can it verify that Tessellations will rent the
number of off-site spaces that it says it will rent? And can it verify that Tessellations actually
uses those parking spaces? Can Tessellations be persuaded to keep its minibuses off-site in
order to free-up space on campus for staff and visitors? Will Tessellations always reserve the
8 spaces for visitor parking that the city says it is required to have?
The neighbors around Tessellations welcome the city's efforts to manage the parking at
Tessellations. We're grateful. At the same time, we feel that we must continue to push for a
residential permit parking zone around the school. It's not our preferred solution to the
problem, but it's a solution that we think we can rely on — a simple solution that we think can
be enforced.
From:Gill Doyle
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: Please Read: Permit Parking
Date:Friday, November 10, 2023 11:36:34 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.
For the Planning Commission's public hearing on Nov. 14, I am forwarding this neighbor's
question.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Pinaki Mukerji <mpinaki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: Please Read: Permit Parking
To: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com>
Cc: Meenakshi Mukerji <meenaks@gmail.com>
Hi Gill,
I will be out of town rest of Nov. Will appreciate if you could ask the question I have.
The school just started this year. And parking is already a problem for teaching staff and
school vans. With the enrollment growth in tbe years ahead, that would make a bad problem
worse.
So what is the school"s projected teaching staff and shuttle van count for the next 5 years
2024 - 2028? What is the parking space count for each of the next 5 year?
From:Gill Doyle
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Public Hearing Nov. 14
Date:Friday, November 10, 2023 11:38:25 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.
On behalf of neighbors Ravi and Sathya Kumar, I want to express these concerns:
"Our concerns are about traffic congestion, noise, and safety issues. The yellow busloading zone will slow traffic on Yorkshire Drive, during school dropoff and pickuptimes."
From:Gill Doyle
To:Emi Sugiyama; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:seanleu@yahoo.com
Subject:Neighbor"s concern
Date:Friday, November 10, 2023 3:57:46 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.
Emi, I'm sitting here with a neighbor, Sean Leu, who has a couple concerns that he wants to
convey to the Planning Commission. He can't attend the Nov. 14 meeting and so can't deliver
these comments in person.
First, Mr. Leu is concerned about the fact that the old Regnart School property has been
rezoned, as he understands it, from public to private use. This causes Mr. Leu to worry that
the property could be used for purposes that might be in conflict with what neighbors want for
their neighborhood. He also fears that the public could be excluded from parts of the
property — such as the athletic field behind the school.
Second, Mr. Leu is worried about how bad the traffic here could get. The great majority of the
families who send their kids to Tessellations live outside our city. That means that virtually
all of the parents must drive in to the neighborhood in order to deliver their children to the
school. As the school grows, the traffic problem will grow. What can be done about this?
Can a limit be put on the size of the student body at Tessellations?
- Gill Doyle on behalf of Sean Leu
From:Gill Doyle
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Emi Sugiyama
Subject:Comment for Nov. 14 public hearing
Date:Monday, November 13, 2023 9:36:16 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.
When CUSD leased Regnart to Tessellations, both knew that there was insufficient
parking at the site for Tessellations' current staff, never mind its future staff. Now the
city has told Tessellations that municipal code requires it to provide on-site parking for
85 staff members, for 8 visitors, and for 55 people who could fill the school’s
multipurpose room. The city’s formula for calculating total number of parking spaces
required yields 148 parking spaces. Tessellations’ 14 minibuses are not taken into
account.
The existing lot in front of the school has 47 parking spaces. Tessellations and the
city agree that it’s not practical or desirable to add 101 parking spaces on
campus. Tessellations has offered a solution: It will find another 20 spaces on
asphalt and grass behind the school, bringing the total on-site to 67 and, in addition,
will provide 81 spaces off-site at New Life Church. This solution ignores the 14
minibuses. The city has approved the plan and has asked the Planning Commission
for its approval. It’s a good plan, provided there’s a shuttle service. Shuttle service is
an essential part of the plan because, without a way to get to and from that off-site lot,
the 81 parking spaces in it have not actually been produced.
The city council thinks that it has a deal. But, right now, there is no shuttle
service. Tessellations, in its Project Description, says that it will offer shuttle service
“in the future if necessary.” So what the city has actually agreed to is only
the promise of off-site parking “in the future if necessary.”. What it’s
actually getting right now is just 20 additional parking spaces behind the school,
which is just 6 more than the 14 minibuses require.
Tessellations has finally pulled its cars off our streets, but in order to do that has had
to ask its staff to carpool, bike, and walk. Without shuttle service to and from an off-
site lot, a rainy day or a breakdown in the carpool system will result in staff bringing
their cars to the school again.
The neighborhood is expecting that a permit parking zone will be set up around the
school. Tessellations has planned numerous large and small events during the year,
with up to 500 people in attendance. Vic Menon has mentioned this. Some of these
events will occur during school hours when the blacktop behind the school can’t be
used for parking. With permit parking around the school and with no shuttle service,
where will all these cars park?
- Gill Doyle
From:Chris Jew
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Letter in support of Tesselations Schools Conditional Use Permit
Date:Monday, November 13, 2023 2:38:44 PM
Attachments:Letter of Support for Tesselation Conditional Use Permit.pdf
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.
Please accept this letter of support for approval of Tessellation Schools Conditional Use
Permit with the City of Cupertino.
November 13, 2023
City of Cuper�no Planning Department
Subject: Leter of Support for Condi�onal Use Permit Applica�on for Tessella�on Schools
Dear City of Cuper�no Planning Department,
Thank you for taking up this Condi�onal Use Permit Applica�on for Tessella�ons Schools. I am wri�ng on behalf of
the Cuper�no Union School District to express our enthusias�c support for the condi�onal use permit applica�on
submited by Tessella�on Schools. As an integral part of the Cuper�no community, we believe that Tessella�on
Schools will contribute significantly to the educa�onal landscape.
Tessella�on Schools’ commitment to providing high-quality educa�on aligns seamlessly with the Cuper�no Union
School District Board of Educa�on’s decision to con�nue providing quality educa�on in the district and community
in the face of declining enrollment and corresponding challenges with reduced funding. The district made strategic
decisions to close the Regnart school located at 1170 Yorkshire Drive, Cuper�no and to reallocate resources to
con�nue providing its students with the best possible educa�onal opportuni�es.
A key component of this effort was to lease the former Regnart Elementary School site. Based on proposals
received in response to an RFP released on August 26, 2022, the Board of Educa�on considered leasing the
Property or por�ons of the Property on a long-term basis. This decision not only brings in key addi�onal revenue
for educa�onal programs but will allow the district to retain the school site if enrollment and funding increase in
the future.
The district also convened a Surplus Property Commitee and held several public mee�ngs. The commitee
recommend to the Board of Educa�on to surplus the Regnart site for educa�onal purposes including private
schools that would have minimal effect on the district’s enrollment. We have carefully reviewed Tessella�on
Schools' plans and find them to be well-conceived, in harmony with the educa�onal needs of our community, and
in alignment with Surplus Property Commitee recommenda�on to the Board of Educa�on.
We are confident that Tessella�on Schools will be a valuable addi�on to the educa�onal landscape in Cuper�no,
providing students with a well-rounded and rigorous curriculum that prepares them for success in an ever-evolving
global society.
In conclusion, the Cuper�no Union School District wholeheartedly supports Tessella�on Schools' applica�on for a
condi�onal use permit. We believe that their establishment will contribute posi�vely to the educa�onal
opportuni�es available to our community.
Thank you for your �me and considera�on.
Sincerely,
Chris Jew
Chief Business Officer
Cuper�no Union School District
From:Sharon Kerr
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Tesselations/Regnart parking
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:39:48 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.
Currently, Tesselations seems to be trying to address its staff parking shortage. The school should be required to
provide adequate parking on its site —- or shuttle its staff in from an offsite lot. I am against instituting parking
permits for the neighborhood because cars will just be pushed into our adjoining residential streets.
Sharon Kerr
7954 Sunderland Dr
Sent from my iPad
From:Denise Menon
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Comment for Public Hearing - Planning Commission - 11-14-23
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:16:33 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.
Planning Commission Mtg. 11-14-23 Comments
My name is Denise Menon. I live on Yorkshire Drive, directly across the
street from the former Regnart campus and the current Tessellations
campus. Yorkshire Drive has been my home for 34 years. I am very
familiar with life up and down the street and on the campus. In addition,
I am currently a teacher in the Cupertino Union School District, and
worked at Regnart for 18 years. I raised my own children in this
neighborhood and value the Yorkshire Drive park space, the blacktop
play area, and the large field. These areas contribute to the quality of
life in the area.
Due to the large number of staff and vehicles at Tessellations, both
permit parking and a shuttle service is necessary. As the school grows,
the number of events, both large and small, will impact the
neighborhood. The City of Cupertino can be part of the solution because
there is parking that can be rented to Tessellations on McClellan Road
(the overflow from McClellan Ranch) and the Blackberry Farm lot (not
used regularly during the school year). Tessellations has 14 vans that
can shuttle people to campus from the parking lots.
As you consider the exception to the parking requirements, you should
be aware that Tessellations has not addressed current safety and traffic
violation issues near the North Gate where the proposed parking lot will
be. Parents are regularly parking in the fire lane, which is a NO
STOPPING AT ANY TIME zone. Calling the sheriff’s office has been of
limited value because the illegally parked cars may be gone by the time
the sheriff arrives. Tessellations should require parents to park in the
main lot when they pick up their children from the after school program.
Thank you,
Denise Menon
1153 Yorkshire Drive
From:Gill Doyle
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Emi Sugiyama; C F; cathyktang@yahoo.com; Bonnie Libby; Bindeeya Desai; Vic Menon; Denise
Subject:Comment for Nov. 14 public hearing
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 11:33:06 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.
In order to let the neighborhood know about this public hearing, the planning division sent
letters to residents around the school and posted two signs in front of the school. These letters
and signs failed to inform the public about the nature of the hearing because residents were
unable to decipher their meaning.
Documentation has been made available online for people interested in the hearing. However,
the documentation submitted by the applicant, Tessellations, contains data that conflict with
data that the city presents in documents that it has submitted for the hearing. I suspect that
some of this documentation is out of date.
If the city is serious about wanting the public involved, and if it really cares about the public's
comments, then it has to use language that the public can understand when it sends its letters
and posts its signs. Furthermore, it has to make sure that the documentation that is made
available to the public is up-to-date.
- Gill Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive)
From:Sunil Murthy
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Agenda #2 on 11/14/23
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 12:06:03 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.
Hi
This is regarding the proposed parking and traffic discussion around the former public
elementary school: Regnart which is now leased to a private school. We are increasingly
noticing more traffic around the neighborhood since the school started, and the parking
situation in the neighborhood is impacting Simple daily citizen activities, such as keeping the
trash out.
On a more serious note, walking around the neighborhood is becoming increasingly
treacherous. Especially Bubb and Folkestone that does not have safe pedestrian measures and
the cars speed at very high speed levels on Bubb Road impacting the safety and the well-being
of the resident community.
As the commission members are aware, the Bubb Rd corridor is a single lane road and is not
designed to handle such huge levels of traffic primarily from outside the community to attend
the private school.
Please take into consideration if the local community and residents to deny expansion of such
increased traffic with parking and other changes.
Regards
Sunil Murthy.
From:Carl Fong
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Emi Sugiyama; Gill Doyle; Carl Fong; carlf9121@yahoo.com
Subject:Comment for Nov. 14 public hearing
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1:24:49 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Comments for Planning Commisision Committee for Nov 14 "23 Hearing - disti-2 (carl) - 11_14_23.docx
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.
Hello,
My name is Carl Fong, residing @ 1169 Yorkshire Drive in Cupertino. I’d like to submit my
comments to tonight’s public hearing that I will speak on.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Carl Fong
High Reliability Custom Products Business Unit Operations
150 Rose Orchard Way
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (408) 822-2600
iPhone: (408) 585-8550
TO: Planning Commission Committee
FROM: Carl Fong
DATE: November 13, 2023
RE: Comments to Nov 14 Public Hearing, PC-11-14-2023 Item No. 2 Municipal Code Amendment
As you have heard from my fellow neighbors regarding the facts & events leading up to where we
are today in our consensus to opposing Tessellations’ plan to alter aesthetic value of the property
for high density parking on school campus, causing potential degradation of real estate value, let
me appeal to the Committee why the community members in the former Regnart neighborhood
are raising concerns that Tessellations’ planned management of staff vehicles onsite & enrollment
expansion will potentially lead to impacting our community’s Quality of Life we have all enjoyed
since setting our roots here.
What sold my family & I to settle into this Cupertino foothills neighborhood besides the highly
acclaimed public education was the natural amenities unique to this area, not exclusively limited to
the serenity & outdoor space.
Our neighborhood welcomed Tessellations to our close-knit community in their providing
enrichment & a quality education to those enrolled in their program. But at what price do we
residents & our families have to sacrifice, give up on our dreams that we have worked a lifetime to
achieve to accept how Tessellations have mistreated our community?
We are an aging demographics that plan to live here until God’s calling. With Tessellations’ intent
to expand their enrollment per their Business Plan, this will increase the density of moving vehicles
in our area, cause traffic congestion & influx of vehicles parking on our neighborhood streets,
promoting a safety risk to us residents.
Although Tessellation is promoting offsite parking & shuttle service for their staff, is this in their
long-term plan to sustain? Based on their proven behavior, Tessellations failed to act on resolving
the vehicle density issue when neighbors raised the concern to their attention, notably
noncompliant to the intent of Section 16, “Good Neighbor” clause of their Lease between
Cupertino Union School District & Tessellations & only initiated action when neighbors rallied &
filed w/ the City of Cupertino for street parking permit, prompting the City of Cupertino to
investigate the matter.
Our intent is not to punish Tessellations but reclaim what we, as neighbors, living here more than 3
decades is rightfully ours to enjoy & cherish.
Is that too much to ask?
From:Vic Menon
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Emi Sugiyama
Subject:Re: Comment for Nov. 14 public hearing (Tessellations exception)
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1:43:37 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.
P.S. - my signature was left off - my name is Vic Menon, a long-term resident on Yorkshire
Drive
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 1:39 PM Vic Menon <victor.menon@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Planning Commission,
Let me start by appreciating the progress made so far. Tessellations has removed about
24 vehicles from neighborhood streets thanks to staff carpooling, walking, and biking.
However, we need to build on this initial progress and go much further in two areas: a)
Events Parking and b) Staff Growth.
Events Parking. Tessellations expects seven larger school-sanctioned events per year
attended by up to 500 people.
In addition, there would be numerous smaller events (less than 60 people) throughout the
year. One example is called Celebrations of Learnings, to be held during the normal
school day. It involves 13 different home rooms averaging 15 students each. Parents,
grandparents, and other relatives may come from all over the Bay Area. There easily
could be 20-25 cars for each of 13 home rooms, a total of 260-325 cars.
Where will all these cars park? I want to be constructive in suggesting a starting point. If
the School needs more parking spaces for itself and/or sub-lessees, there are 162
spaces at Blackberry Farm that are not used during the school year. There are also 25
spaces at the McClellan Ranch satellite parking lot, which the Tessellations minivans
pass every school day on their way to the Nature Campus. Both parking lots are owned
by the City.
Remote parking spaces aren’t worth much by themselves, however. Shuttle services
are essential to keeping vehicles off neighborhood streets. We need an
enforceable commitment from Tessellations to implement shuttles.
Staff Growth. Tessellations currently has 70 simultaneous employees and is applying for
85. Quoting:
In the longer term, we would like to create an additional parking lot in the frontage
area along Yorkshire (currently grass)...
We want to go on record that it will always be unacceptable to sacrifice Yorkshire Park to
development. Tessellations understates the area by referring to it as simply a grass
frontage area; it’s much more than that. It’s a long park anchored by eight majestic “liquid
amber” trees beloved by dogs, children, adults, and squirrels.
Again, we appreciate the progress but many more parking spaces - and shuttle services -
are needed. This will avoid having too many vehicles in a small neighborhood, and the
safety issues that it creates.Thank you.
TO: Cupertino Planning Commission
FROM: Bindeeya Desai
DATE: November 14, 2023
SUBJECT: Comments for public hearing on Nov 14 for Application No. MCA-2023-003, U-2023-002, EXC-
2023-009 in BA zone
I appreciate The Planning division’s recommendation to go forth with Tessellations parking
exception permit which is essentially based on neighborhood and community oriented values.
It is these values that make our neighborhoods and our cities livable.
They are:
1. Public use of BA zoned Regnart site
2. Preserving the open spaces, we fondly call “The Yorkshire Playground”(which is the play
field and courts) and “The Yorkshire Park” (the front lawn area)
3. Using alternate systems to avoid vehicles on site and on our streets , keeping our
neighborhood uncongested and peaceful.
However, when I look at the EXC application proposal, I see that public use and open spaces
have been compromised and alternate commute systems are far from adequate.
1a. At first, neighbors were not permitted to use the site 6am- 6pm M-F. The City helped us to
somewhat straighten that out. However, the school is in session 8am- 3.30pm M-F, but posted
signs display longer hours. This prevents public use of site longer than necessary.
1b. The site, it’s use and the recommendation for granting of EXC by Planning division have all
been based on using the role model of Regnart and its operations. Regnart had no more than 2
large local student family events where the play court area felt like a wonderful open air stage
where performances/fairs were held while neighbors could watch, participate, or still jog on the
field. Tessellations’ “numerous” events will fill all of Yorkshire Playground with vehicles, which
occur on weekdays and weekends and last up to 9pm. This prevents public from using any part
of this open space when they are allowed to.
2a. Yorkshire Playground is the heart of Regnart campus and neighborhood. It is a safe place to
be with no vehicle or road in sight and a 360 deg. view of mountains. It is used by all age groups
from our community. The basketball courts are a favorite among high school kids, ex-Regnart
students now in college, and families who come all the way from Stelling road . Yorkshire Park
with its impressive row of trees and lawn is a landmark, a photo spot in fall, and a rest stop for
one and all - birds including owls, deer, visiting duck family from Seven Springs pond, dog
walkers, pram walkers, wheelchair users, elderly couples, free play, and even picnic lunch stop
to our mail carrier who lays down a cute blanket under the shade. Planned school events must
involve the use of these open spaces by Tessellations families, not their vehicles. It is
unacceptable to consider parking even temporarily in these two open spaces without robbing
the neighborhood, the school campus itself, and the City at large of this most valuable resource.
2b. The proposed shade by the multipurpose room is consistent with the use of this open space
and must be permitted.
3a. While offsite parking and shuttle vans, car pools, etc. are excellent ways to reduce traffic
and related pollution, they have been accepted without exploring their fullest potential .
Multiple satellite parking/shuttle options for all their “numerous” event related needs have not
been considered.
3b. The multiple and unspecified number of events occurring when school is in session or not in
session can also be managed without impairing open spaces by toning down the attendance at
all events to no more than 50 persons at a time who can be shuttled from off-site parking
locations without much impact to the neighborhood environment.
3c. The potential on this site to accommodate Tessellations’ everyday parking needs have also
remained largely unexplored. Tessellations has employed car pool and off-site parking currently
but it is not very effective. Kindergarten parents (later Pre-school parents too) continue to park
on Yorkshire Drive around Yorkshire Court and beyond. Staff and base camp parents (and other
vendors/sublease in future) continue to park on Yorkshire Drive around north gate
maintenance and fire access, some parking for many hours and beyond 6pm, others in a ‘no
stopping anytime’ fire lane with multiple signs prohibiting parking. Base camp and other
vendors have to be bound by the same alternate systems of shuttle and drop -off/pick-up drive
through at existing main entrance parking lot.
Please see the attached marked up plan that highlights the above mentioned values, and
explores the site’s potential in expanding existing parking on site without abnormally impacting
open spaces and the neighborhood.
Lastly, I understand that this is not a public hearing for neighbors requesting permit zone on our
streets, but these issues are related and need to be addressed in due course. If current
commute/parking proposal is granted as is, neighbors will require the consideration of a 12
hour permit parking or a tow away zone. Permit zones are neither a practical nor an
aesthetically pleasing solution on our wonderful streets, but inevitable if the Planning division
and The City Council approves this application without given Tessellations another chance to
provide viable and dependable transport systems for all its year round, daily, vendor, sub-lease,
and numerous event related needs.
YO
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
YORKSHIRE DRIVE
FO
L
K
E
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
I
V
E
(E) LOADING ZONE(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #49606
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #49606
(E)
RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #66937
(E)
RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #69066
(E)
RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #69066
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #64503
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #59252
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #49606
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #49606
(E) RELOCATABLE
STUDENT VILLAGE
TYPE V - N HR
2,400 S.F.
DSA #51755
(E) BUILDING "C"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "E"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "D"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "F"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "B"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #51783
(E) BUILDING "H"
ADMIN.
TYPE V - N
2,405 S.F.
DSA #19480
DSA #55794
(E) BUILDING "G"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "A"
GUIDED LEARNING CENTER
TYPE V - 1 HR
13,625 S.F.
DSA #51783
MULTI-USE
DSA #31225
23
TYP.
27
26
30
29
28
20
21
22
23
11 TYP.
8
6
7
15
15
3
8
6
6
17
17
15
1 5
8
DSA #51783
DSA #51783
REGNART ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=30'-0"PLAN NORTH
(E) PLAY FIELD
19 20
19 20
19
19
19
19
12 14TYP.
9 9
9
9 9
10
9
10
(E) LAWN
19
14
14
16
16
16
14
(E) TURF
(E) LAWN
14
16
1412
14
14
(E) TURF
19
TYP.
3
4
21
TYP.
(E) LAWN
(E) LAWN
EDGE OF (E) A.C.
PAVING
18
33
16
(E) TREE TO
REMAIN
(E) IRRIGATION
EQUIP.
(E) CONC.
PLANTERS
TO REMAIN
19
12'-0"
DSA #55794-
SIM. TO DET
8/A1.2
29
15
PARKING RATIO:
TOTAL PARKING SPACE: 53
TOTAL DA SPACE: 4 (REQ'D 3)
DSA #51783
DSA #51783
DSA #51783
DSA #51783
2
2
2
DSA #55794
DSA #55794
DSA #55794
DSA #51755- SIM.TO 7/A1.2
TYP.
3
(E) SHADE STRUCTURES
TYPE V - N
1,600 S.F.
DSA #112993
22
1
A1.2
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL: A BARRIER FREE ACCESS
WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT VERTICAL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" AT
1:2 MAXIMUM SLOPE, EXCEPT THAT LEVEL CHANGES DO NOT
EXCEED 1/4" VERTICAL. MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2 % .
ARCHITECT AND CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THAT ALL BARRIERS IN
THE PATH OF TRAVEL HAVE BEEN REMOVED PER SECTION
1133B.7
LEGEND:
EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN ( NO WORK TO BE DONE)
SITE PLAN NOTES:
SCOPE OF WORK
(E) VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN.
(E) D.A. TOWAWAY SIGN.
(E) D.A. PARKING SPACE.
GENERAL SHEET NOTES:
(E) PATH OF TRAVEL IS FLAT, APPROX. 0.5-1% WITHOUT
ANY CROSS SLOPE EXCEEDING 2%, OR ABRUPT CHANGES
IN LEVEL; MIN. 8'-0" CLEARANCE; (E) NON-SKID LIGHT
BROOM FINISH CONC.; WITHOUT ANY STEPS, RAMPS OR
STAIRS.
A.
(E) FIRE HYDRANT.
(E) D.A. DRINKING FOUNTAIN.
(E) TREE WELL / PLANTER.
(E) VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE.
(E) ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS
PROPERTY LINE
(N) A.C. PAVING
CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
FENCE PER DETAIL 10/A1.2, REVIEW LOCATION WITH THE DISTRICT.
D.
(E) D.A. PARKING SIGN.
(E) STUDENT TOILETS- SEE FLOOR PLANS
(E) STAFF TOILETS- SEE FLOOR PLANS
(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE.
(E) COVERED WALKWAY.
(E) A.C. PAVING TO REMAIN.
(E) CONCRETE PAVING TO REMAIN.
(E) DSA APPROVED CONCRETE CURB CUT.
(E) PLAY AREA.
CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN THE PATH OF TRAVEL WITHOUT
CREATING ANY OBSTRUCTION DURING CONSTRUCTION
PHASE.
B.
SEE STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND PLUMBING FOR
MORE INFORMATION.
C.
(E) AC PAVING.
(E) AC TOPSEAL OVER (E) AC PAVING.
(E) GAME LINES.
(N) CONC. PAVING
(N) TURF AT PLAY FIELDS.
ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE
(E) 3' x 3' D.A. PAVEMENT SYMBOL PER CBC.SEC.1129B.5.
(E) COVERED FABRIC SHADE LUNCH AREA.
(E) LANDSCAPED AREA.
(E) PLAY EQUIPMENT, FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
NOT USED.
NOT USED.
NOT USED.
REMOVE D.A. PARKING SIGN AND PAINT OVER D.A. PARKING SYMBOL.
RELOCATED VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN.
(E) STRIPING @ D.A. PARKING.
(E) CONCRETE PAVING.
(E) EQUIP. CONC. PAD W/ EQUIP. FENCE.
(E) CONTAINER TO BE MOVED BEFORE (N) A.C. PAVING WORK IS DONE,
RELOCATE PER SCHOOL DISTRICT.
(E) PARKING SPACE, STRIPING AS SHOWN.
1 HR RATED WALL
2 HR AREA SEPARATION WALL
E.PROVIDE SIGN ON OR ADJACENT TO GATES WITHIN PATH OF TRAVEL
STATING THAT "THIS GATE IS TO REMAIN LOCKED IN OPEN POSITION
DURING SCHOOL/BUSINESS HOURS OR DURING A PUBLIC FUNCTION"
32
33
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
20
19
18
21
14
17
16
15
10
11
12
13
6
7
9
8
4
5
3
2
1
(E) SIGN STATING " ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE".34
EXTERIOR PAINTING : PAINT ALL PERMANENT BUILDINGS, RELOCATABLES,
COVERED WALKWAYS AND CANOPIES, SEE SPECIFICATIONS.
F.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
FABRIC SHADE
1170 Yorkshire
10582 STERLING BLVD.
S A N JOSE , C A 9 5 0 1 4
T 4 0 8 . 4 1 0 . 3 4 4 1
www.nickbui006@gmail.com
i PARCH ARCHITECT
A1.1
bach.tran@tessellations.school
REGNART SCHOOL
(408) 891-8702
43-13
01-xxxxxx
IDENTIFICATION STAMP
DSA FILE NUMBER
DATE______________________
DIV. OF THE STATE ARCHITECT
APPL.#
AC _____ FLS _____ SS_____
TESSELLATIONS SCHOOL
Cupertino School District
caroline.gupta@
tessellations.school
STRUCTURE
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
From:Gill Doyle
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Bonnie Libby
Subject:Comment for Nov. 14 public hearing
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 2:25:46 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.
Folkestone neighbor Bonnie Libby has sent her comment to me and has allowed me to deliver
it to the Planning Commission:
" What recourse do we have if Tessellations does not abide by their growth and parking commitments?
Also, I have concerns about the subleasing of parts of the property to other agencies, which will add to
the parking congestion. I worry about the kids in our neighborhood on their way to and from school. I
have noticed that the parents speed down Folkestone as they leave Tessellations campus. I have been
inching out of my driveway, as I don't have backup cameras on my car. On several occasions, cars have
sped down the street on the way to and from Tessellations and would have hit me if I hadn't been
creeping out ever so slowly. I am careful, but I am concerned that parents who are late to pick up their
children may not be as careful. I have often seen cars leaving the lot by the office without stopping at the
stop sign on campus, before crossing Yorkshire. In addition, I have seen cars pulling into the lot by the
office that specifically says, "Do not enter." I believe Tessellations must do better to monitor and convey
to parents the need for extra caution and abiding by all safety laws."
- Gill Doyle on behalf of Bonnie Libby
From:Gill Doyle
To:Emi Sugiyama
Subject:Environmental Review
Date:Friday, November 10, 2023 4:53:24 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.
Emi, our neighbor, Mr. Sean Leu, who dropped by today to talk to me about his concerns
regarding Tessellations, noticed in Tessellations' PDF, Tessellations Project Description for
Cupertino Planning Division, Location: 1170 Yorkshire Drive, that Tessellations doesn't want to do
an environmental review: "It is our understanding that there are no action items
based on the above at this time. Please let us know if this is incorrect." Mr. Leu
thinks that an environmental review would include the impact on the neighborhood of
increased traffic in the neighborhood due to Tessellations' parents driving in and out
of the neighborhood. The traffic is a big problem for him.
Does an environmental review include a traffic study? Is Tessellations trying to avoid
a traffic study?
Mr. Leu's other big concern was the fact that the school has been rezoned, he thinks,
from public to private. I wasn't aware that any rezoning had occurred. Is Mr. Leu
right about this? Has the property been rezoned?
- Gill Doyle
From:Gill Doyle
To:Emi Sugiyama
Subject:Re: Street parking
Date:Thursday, November 9, 2023 10:08:27 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.
Bindeeya Desai believes that, in addition to being able to speak for three minutes as
individuals, we can speak for ten minutes as a group. Can you tell me how that works?
- Gill Doyle
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 3:20 PM Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hello Gill,
Speakers are limited to one, three minute comment. If you would like to submit
comments beforehand, please e-mail comments by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 14 to the Commission at
planningcommission@cupertino.org. These e-mail comments will be received by the
Commission members before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the
meeting.
Additionally, please see the agenda for the November 14th meeting attached. The
Tessellations item and associated documents can be found here:
https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?
ID=6411694&GUID=AB2E4F0B-126D-4304-85DA-
46D1F22155EB&Options=&Search=
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Emi Sugiyama?
Associate Planner
Community Development
EmiS@cupertino.org
(408)777-3205
From: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 10:09 AM
To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fwd: Street parking
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.
Emi, this email, dated August 10, is one of the first emails that I sent to Tessellations and the
city regarding the street parking around Tessellations.
Some neighbors and I plan to attend the November 14 planning commission meeting. How
many minutes will each get to speak? Can a person speak more than one time?
- Gill Doyle
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 9:39 PM
Subject: Street parking
To: info@tessellations.school <info@tessellations.school>
Cc: Bonnie Libby <bglibby@yahoo.com>, Hung Wei <hwei@cupertino.org>
I live on the southwest corner of Folkestone and Yorkshire — right across from your office.
Your staff have begun to park on Yorkshire and Folkestone, and this of course presents a
problem to the people living on those streets, since our view of the street is obstructed when
we pull our cars out of our driveways. I dealt with this to some extent when Regnart
Elementary was operating, though not on a daily basis, as the case now seems to be.
It's my impression that California law requires schools to provide sufficient parking for staff,
visitors, and students. You have 42 parking spaces in the lot on Yorkshire. That would
probably not be adequate even if you didn't have 14 minibuses parked there. It seems to me
that you should build more parking — perhaps to the south of the baseball diamond.
I'm happy to have your school in our neighborhood, and I'm pleased to see the
improvements that you're making. Additional parking would be another great improvement.
- Your neighbor, Gill Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive)
From:Kay Lohmiller
To:Emi Sugiyama
Subject:Tessellations School
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1:41:57 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.
Good afternoon: I live at 1191 Stafford Drive and signed the petition to request
parking permits for our neighborhood. I now want my name removed from that
petition as I absolutely don't think it is necessary.
Tessellations has done a nice job of parking their cars and vans on the grass on
Yorkshire, however, they do need to get ramps or have the curb strip modified so they
can safely pull onto the area. They also have their staff parking on the blacktop at the
end of the school property.
They should be allowed to park on the school side of Yorkshire by the school and on
Yorkshire in front of the existing parking lot. When Regnart School was open they
always had use of those areas to park and from what I have heard Tessellations has
been told the cannot use that area. That area will hold a lot of their vehicles.
Where I live on Stafford Drive we had no issue but everyone was worried what it will
be like when Tessellations grows to 300 students.
Please consider my request to NOT issue Parking Permits at this time.
Thank you - Katherine (Kay) Lohmiller
From:Bindeeya Desai
To:Emi Sugiyama
Subject:RE: proposed plan for 3 applications in BA zone
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 8:39:19 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.
Hi Emi,
Thank you for calling me.
I forgot to ask/ discuss the following:
1. I understand the use permit- it is a change of use from public to private. I also
understand parking exception- the need for parking compliance with code. What is the
MCA permit about? What is being amended?
2. What is the ordinance for signs, promo sails, banners and the like on the Regnart
property? Kindly direct me to the chapter in the zoning code, so I can read it myself.
In addition, here are a few violations:
1. I learnt that Tessallations has a lease agreement that clearly states that they are required to
allow public use of the property outside the hours 8am-4pm M-F. Hence, parking on the play
courts is not permitted outside those hours. Currently, it is being parked from 7am to 7pm.
The signs onsite up to now prevented the public from using the property from 7am-6pm (
this was in violation of their lease agreement). Today, the signs changed- one read 7am-
4pm. Another read 6am- 4pm. Both these signs are still in violation. They have to be 8am-
4pm as per the terms agreed in their lease.
2. Tessallations parks 80 cars on play courts up to 6 or 7pm. No vehicles are permitted in that
area after 4 pm. The courts have to be available for public use.
3. In their EXC application to the Planning Commission, Tessallations is not accounting for the
parents and visitors who either are parking on the play courts or on the street on Yorkshire
Drive. They are doing this after The City has explicitly warned them not to. Today, I took a
picture of 4 cars along north side of Yorkshire at 5pm, the north gate was opened with a sign
that read base camp, one car was parked in the ‘no parking anytime fire lane’. Along
Yorkshire, on the south side, there were more parent cars parked. Tessallations seems to
listen to The city for a few days, then they are reverting back to parking on streets. Their
requirement for parking per zoning code cannot be met with on this property. They cannot
be allowed to use a property that they cannot fit in or is too small for their needs.
4. Tessallations calls themselves a k-8 school on the Regnart campus. However, per their lease
agreement they intend operating a K-12 school. If it is a K-12 school, then per zoning code,
their parking requirement will be a lot more than 148 to include 1/3 high school students.
This is impossible to achieve on the Regnart site without impacting the open space character
of this site and the beauty of our neighborhood.
5. 12-15 shuttle vans are parked daily on the lawn in front. I know, you said that they cannot
park on the lawn and Tessallations will be asked to remove them. When will this happen?
This lawn is a much loved landmark feature of our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Bindeeya Desai
From: Bindeeya Desai [mailto:bindeeya@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 9:42 PM
To: 'Emi Sugiyama'
Subject: RE: proposed plan for 3 applications in BA zone
Hi Emi,
I would like to talk to you on phone about this. I tried calling on Thursday upon receiving the notice
of hearing but it is not easy to reach you. Please give me an appointment to talk to you on phone.
My phone # 650 471 9682.
Thank you for forwarding the plan. Unfortunately this is an existing plan, not a proposed plan. I
cannot comment on an existing plan.
I will list some immediate questions that came up.
1. The additional or temporary parking being proposed is not marked. The legend has scope of
work listed, but it is not marked anywhere on the plan. Where and what is the scope of
work? There is no description of the scope of work at all.
2. I have learnt from neighbors who received information from the planning Commission that
20 additional parking spaces are being proposed by Tessallations. There is no room to build
148 spaces required per code. Regnart has 47 existing spaces. The plan shows 53 existing
spaces. Where are the new 20 parking spaces proposed to be built? It is not shown on the
plan displayed.
3. Temporary onsite parking is not marked on the plan. Is it proposed on the basketball
courts? This space is used by public (middle and high school kids from cupertino school
district) when the campus is open to public. Event parking cannot be allowed on play courts
on weekends and after 3 pm depriving the public from its use. Event parking guests or
parents have to park off-site and shuttled if the event is not between 7am-3pm M-F.
4. What else is being proposed?
5. As a BA zone property, public access to the Regnart property was allowed outside the hours
7am-3pm M-F. Does the public enjoy the same public access when Tessallations uses the
property as a private school?
6. Will there be any changes to the lawn, trees, landscape in areas visible from Yorkshire
Drive? Currently the front lawn is being used to park 12-15 shuttle vans. Are they going to be
removed from here? Will this area stay a lawn? It has to. It is a much loved landmark of our
neighborhood.
7. It seems clear that Tessallations is trying to operate on a property that is too small for its
needs. They were crowding our streets until The City intervened. What do we do if
Tessallations staff park on our streets again? Can any Tessallations parent or future parents
attending their multiple promo and parent- teacher events park on Yorkshire Drive?
8. I understand the use permit- it is a change of use from public to private. I also understand
parking exception- the need for parking compliance with code. What is the MCA permit
about? What is being amended?
9. This property is owned by CUSD. Can a tenant apply for permits?
Thank you.
Best,
Bindeeya
From: Emi Sugiyama [mailto:emis@cupertino.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 4:09 PM
To: Bindeeya Desai
Subject: RE: proposed plan for 3 applications in BA zone
Hello Bindeeya,
Attached please find the submitted Site Plan for this site. Effective January 1, 2023,
Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of copyrighted material
associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view
plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with
the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to
planning@cupertino.org. Plans will also be made available digitally during the hearing to
consider the proposal.
The project outlined on this plan is a request from Tessellations, a private school, to operate
at the former Regnart Elementary School campus. Their project includes a Conditional Use
Permit, which would be the type of permit that allows them to operate, and a Parking
Exception which would allow them to utilize alternative parking methods, including use of
an off-site parking lot and the use of a temporary on-site parking lot for events, in order to
meet the minimum requirement for parking based on our Municipal Code requirements.
I hope that this provides a clearer plan for you to review as well as a more detailed project
description. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or if you would like to
set up a time to meet or call to discuss the project further.
Image removed by sender.
Emi Sugiyama?
Associate Planner
Community Development
EmiS@cupertino.org
(408)777-3205
Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.
From: Bindeeya Desai <bindeeya@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2023 9:46 AM
To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <benjaminf@cupertino.org>
Subject: proposed plan for 3 applications in BA zone
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.
Hello Ms. Emi S and Benjamin Fu,
I am requesting a readable digital copy of the proposed development plan for all 3 applications
below. Alternatively kindly send me a link if this is available on your web-site.
1. MCA-2023-003: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.76
2. U-2023-002: Use Permit - Major, Use Permit to consider the use of an existing public school
site for private education (K-8).
3. EXC-2023-009: Use Permit and associated Parking Exception to consider the use of an
existing public school site for private education (K-8).
I would also like to inform the Planning Division that there is a notice of public hearing posted on the
property 1170 Yorkshire Drive which displays an ‘existing plan’ (which is a bit inaccurate as well). The
text on this existing plan is too blurred and tiny to qualify as readable. Kindly display and distribute a
readable plan where proposed development is clearly indicated, giving the public time and
opportunity to review the plan and be able to speak at the public hearing. In addition to providing
the development plan, kindly help the public understand what the underlined means in terms of
development on 1170 Yorkshire Drive.
Best,
Bindeeya Desai
From: Bindeeya Desai [mailto:bindeeya@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 4:54 PM
To: 'emis@cupertino.org'
Subject: proposed plan for application no: U-2023-002
Subject: Application no: U-2023-002, APN: 362 08 001
Hello Emi,
I am writing to request a readable digital copy of the proposed development plan for the above
mentioned application. Alternatively kindly send me a link if this is available on your web-site.
I would also like to inform the Planning Division that there is a notice of public hearing posted on the
property 1170 Yorkshire Drive which displays an ‘existing plan’ (which is a bit inaccurate as well). The
text on this existing plan is too blurred and tiny to qualify as readable. Kindly display a readable plan
with proposed development clearly indicated, giving the public time and opportunity to review the
plan and be able to speak at the public hearing.
Best,
Bindeeya Desai
From:Gill Doyle
To:Emi Sugiyama
Subject:Re: Tessellations parking exception
Date:Wednesday, November 8, 2023 8:55:31 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.
Thank you, Emi! I understand that you and Bindeeya Desai will speak to each other soon. I
look forward to hearing what comes out of that conversation. Thanks for all the helpful
answers you've given us thus far.
- Gill Doyle
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 8:45 AM Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hello Gill,
This number comes from our Municipal Code requirements. Specifically for schools
we require 1 space per employee, 1 space per 56 sq. ft. of multipurpose room, 8
visitor spaces, and 1 space for every 3 students at senior high school or college level.
Tessellations has proposed a maximum student body of 300 students and a
maximum staff level of 85 employees and the 148 parking spaces are based on these
upper limits.
Emi Sugiyama?
Associate Planner
Community Development
EmiS@cupertino.org
(408)777-3205
From: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 7:18 PM
To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Tessellations parking exception
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.
Thank you, Emi, for your response. I do think that permit parking is the surest way to
prevent Tessellations staff and visitors from parking on our streets. But if Tessellations had
sufficient parking for staff and visitors, then permit parking wouldn't be necessary.
I have another question for you: How did the planning division arrive at that required
minimum number of parking spaces at Tessellations: 148? I have heard that the number of
children now at Tessellations is about half the number that were at the school when Regnart
was operating there. That means that Tessellations could potentially double the number of
kids it has today. Tessellations' current staff is 75. If the student enrollment doubled, and
the staff doubled to meet the increase in students, then Tessellations would have a staff of
150. That's close to the number of parking spaces that the planning division has cited as the
minimum number required.
- Gill Doyle
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:15 PM Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hello Gill,
The project will be conditioned to follow the parking plan that is approved.
Should the school operate outside of these requirements, the City’s Code
Enforcement Division is able to take investigative and enforcement action to
ensure that operations are aligned with the approved operations plan.
Additionally, should parking violate the permit parking (if approved),
enforcement action can be taken.
I hope this addresses your question, but feel free to follow up if there are any
outstanding questions or concerns.
Emi Sugiyama?
Associate Planner
Image removed by sender.
Community Development
EmiS@cupertino.org
(408)777-3205
Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.
From: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:07 PM
To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Tessellations parking exception
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.
Emi, thanks for talking to Li-hua about Tessellations' parking exception. I've already
shared the information you gave me with the 68 households in our proposed permit
parking zone.
I have one more question right now, and that's about enforcement.
The city requires that Tessellations provide 148 parking spaces, but Tessellations is
planning to add just 20 permanent spaces to the 47 in the existing lot. That's 67 spaces on
campus. Tessellations hopes to persuade the Planning Commission to accept off-site
parking for the remaining 81 cars that could potentially deliver staff, students, and visitors
to the school.
Right now Tessellations has a staff of 75, but they are opening a preschool in January and
will welcome 9th graders to the school next fall. And so they will presumably be adding
staff.
Here's my question: If the Tessellations staff members who can't park on campus due to
insufficient parking there choose not to commute from an off-site parking lot but instead
drive to the school and park on the streets around the school, what can the city do about
it?
- Gill Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive)
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 10:51 AM Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hello Gill,
I was able to meet with your wife to go over some of the information related to
this permit request. In response to your questions below, per our Municipal
Code standards, the school is required to provide 148 parking spaces. The
existing lot has 47 spaces and Tessellations is proposing a back parking lot that
would accommodate 20 additional spaces. Tessellations would also utilize an
off-site parking lot to accommodate the remaining parking spaces, if needed.
Employees who park at this off-site parking lot would be shuttled in. For
events, Tessellations is proposing the use of their blacktop area as a temporary
parking lot.
Please let me know if there is anything else I can clarify.
Image removed by sender.
Emi Sugiyama?
Associate Planner
Community Development
EmiS@cupertino.org
(408)777-3205
Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender.
From: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 10:09 AM
To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Tessellations parking exception
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.
Thank you, Emi, That helps. What is the minimum number of parking spaces that
Tessellations must comply with? Is Tessellations planning to build a new parking lot on
campus? If so, how many parking spaces would be in the new parking lot?
- Gill Doyle
P.S. my wife, Li-hua Wu, is there in the lobby now. Perhaps it would be easier to speak
to her about this.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 9:44 AM Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hello Gill,
Thank you for reaching out. As part of their permit, Tessellations is
requesting consideration of an alternative parking plan to meet the minimum
required number of parking spaces, including use of an off-site parking lot
and the use of a temporary on-site parking lot for events. The term "Parking
Exception" is a reflection of the language used to classify many different
types of exceptions related to parking and allowed through our Municipal
Code. Tessellations is not requesting a reduction in the total number of
parking spaces required.
This request will not affect the processing of the petition for permit parking
submitted by the neighborhood and currently in process.
I hope that this clarifies the purpose of the Parking Exception request. Please
let me know if you have any additional questions or if you would like to set
up a time to meet or call to discuss the project further.
Emi Sugiyama?
Associate Planner
Community Development
EmiS@cupertino.org
(408)777-3205
From: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 7:32 PM
To: Emi Sugiyama <emis@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu
<benjaminf@cupertino.org>
Cc: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>; Bonnie Libby
<bglibby@yahoo.com>; Vic Menon <victor.menon@gmail.com>; C F
<carlf9121@yahoo.com>; cathyktang@yahoo.com; Denise
<denise_menon@yahoo.com>; Howard Wolnowsky <hnlwol@att.net>
Subject: Tessellations parking exception
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.
Emi and Ben, the neighbors who live here near Tessellations have still not been able
to find out what sort of parking exception Tessellations has requested. As you know
by now, the neighbors here have organized to petition the city for a permit parking
zone around the school. Tessellations has an unusually large staff (75 at present and
growing), and its staff cars have clogged Folkestone and Yorkshire, making it hard
for neighbors to safely back their cars out of their driveways and endangering the
Cupertino kids who ride their bikes and scooters up and down these two streets on
their way to and from Kennedy and Monta Vista.
If Tessellations is attempting an end-run around our effort to establish a permit
parking zone, then we will organize to show up in numbers at the November 14
Planning Commission meeting in order to oppose that. But, before organizing the 55
households who signed our petition, I want to understand whether it's necessary to
alarm so many of my neighbors. We need to understand what this meeting is about.
We need to know what sort of parking exception Tessellations has asked for. Can
one of you please talk to me about this before Tuesday. I can't wait longer than that
because it takes time to organize people.
- Gill Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive)
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Today"s Planning Commission Agenda item 3 TD Ameritrade Main St addition 11/14/2023
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 3:20:38 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.
Planning Commission,
Welcome back to meeting mode ! You have been missed.
I have a few comments/observations/requests related to item #3 on
tonight's agenda. 'Modification of the original Main Street Use Permit'.
Please be sure that wherever Bird Safe requirements are mentioned
in the resolution, Dark Sky reference is also included.
Please do not let a square footage addition in retail/commercial space
(project total) alter the efforts to maintain an acceptable (and
previously prescribed) balance of actual, true, essential retail VS.
restaurant uses. I believe that the added sf space in the TD
Ameritrade will be for office use, not commercial/retail.
This may mean adding/altering some language in the resolution.
Note that, in the plan set for this project, 'Shop 6, Major Retail' is not
actually identified in the map images. Why is this ? it seems to be
the only omission on the full site map.
It seems odd that the application number for this project is a number
from a year ago, or more.
Given the long history of the Main Street development, I am
disappointed that the PC has the final decision on this item
and that the City Council will not have a public discussion and
review of the application... unless PC decision is appealed
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As for Item #2
I have heard, and read, many public concerns and valuable comments
about the real life issues with parking surrounding the former Regnart
school site. Please respectfully consider comments from the city's
residents.
Thank you,
Lisa Warren
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Today"s Planning Commission Agenda item 3 TD Ameritrade Main St addition 11/14/2023
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 3:20:38 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.
Planning Commission,
Welcome back to meeting mode ! You have been missed.
I have a few comments/observations/requests related to item #3 on
tonight's agenda. 'Modification of the original Main Street Use Permit'.
Please be sure that wherever Bird Safe requirements are mentioned
in the resolution, Dark Sky reference is also included.
Please do not let a square footage addition in retail/commercial space
(project total) alter the efforts to maintain an acceptable (and
previously prescribed) balance of actual, true, essential retail VS.
restaurant uses. I believe that the added sf space in the TD
Ameritrade will be for office use, not commercial/retail.
This may mean adding/altering some language in the resolution.
Note that, in the plan set for this project, 'Shop 6, Major Retail' is not
actually identified in the map images. Why is this ? it seems to be
the only omission on the full site map.
It seems odd that the application number for this project is a number
from a year ago, or more.
Given the long history of the Main Street development, I am
disappointed that the PC has the final decision on this item
and that the City Council will not have a public discussion and
review of the application... unless PC decision is appealed
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As for Item #2
I have heard, and read, many public concerns and valuable comments
about the real life issues with parking surrounding the former Regnart
school site. Please respectfully consider comments from the city's
residents.
Thank you,
Lisa Warren
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-11-14 Planning Commission Mtg-AGENDA ITEM3 - Main Street/TD Ameritrade
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 3:23:04 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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Clerk, Staff and Planning Commissioners,
I regularly download files for agenda items and almost always, the attachments have the names
listed in the meeting details. For tonight’s PC meeting Agenda Item3 (Main Street) these are the
attachments listed in the Meeting Details screen:
When I downloaded these files, this is what I got for file names. This is very difficult because I don’t
have the Meeting Details screen up all the time to tell me that file “3.pdf” is the “Plan Set”!
REQUEST: Can you please fix it so these files download with their proper file names?
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From:Lauren Sapudar
To:Peggy Griffin
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:RE: 2023-11-14 Planning Commission Mtg-AGENDA ITEM4 - File name issue
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 3:45:34 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image006.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image012.png
PC 11-14-2023 Amended Searchable Packet.pdf
Good afternoon Peggy, (Commissioners Bcc’d on this email)
We are looking in to this. Unfortunately, at this time, we are unable to correct the name of the
attachment when opened or downloaded. Attached is the searchable packet to view all
attachments. The bookmarks tab can take you directly to each attachment.
Regards,
Lauren Sapudar
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-1312
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 3:31 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: 2023-11-14 Planning Commission Mtg-AGENDA ITEM4 - File name issue
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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Clerk, Staff and Planning Commissioners,
In addition to Agenda Item 3, Agenda Item 4 also has no meaningful file name when the file is
downloaded.
I regularly download files for agenda items and almost always, the attachments have the names
listed in the meeting details. For tonight’s PC meeting Agenda Item4 (2-stories and ADU) these are
the attachments listed in the Meeting Details screen:
When I downloaded these files, this is what I got for file names. This is very difficult because I don’t
have the Meeting Details screen up all the time to tell me that file “3.pdf” is the “Plan Set”!
REQUEST: Can you please fix it so the file downloaded has its proper file name?
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-11-14 Planning Commission Mtg-AGENDA ITEM2 - Tessellations at Regnart - CEQA
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4:20:59 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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Clerk, Staff and Planning Commissioners,
Environmental Assessment
I question the statement that the proposed project is “categorically exempt for CEQA” because “the
project involves negligible or no expansion of use”. There is a significant expansion of use!
1. This is a private school with the majority of its students coming from outside Cupertino, not
from the local neighborhood resulting in a significant traffic change.
2. The staff is double what Regnart had!
3. The hours of operation are significantly different than what Regnart’s elementary public
school hours were. This school will go until 9pm!
4. Regnart was K-5 but this school is K-9, adding grades 6-9 (middle school) which adds sports,
games, etc. This results in more traffic, noise and lighting.
This should not be except from CEQA. The impacts to the local community are significant, in an area
that has consistently suffered from traffic issues.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-11-14 Planning Commission Mtg-AGENDA ITEM2 - Missing RED-LINED Muni Code
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4:27:28 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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear City Clerk, Staff and Planning Commissioners,
It is difficult to see the changes to the Muni Code when a red-lined version is not provided.
REQUEST: Please provide a red-lined version.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From:Y Thorstenson
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Housing
Subject:Clarify and Boost ADU Rules
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4:08:28 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 Commission,
I’m glad our city’s planning commission is taking up the revision of ADU rules, with the
passage of new state laws requiring cities to relax unnecessary rules. Overall, I believe our
main goals should be to give property owners the freedom and discretion to decide how to
best utilize their own land, and to demonstrate to the State of California that we will tackle
our severe housing and homelessness crisis in good faith. ADUs have shown to be an
effective way to house new families and individuals in Cupertino and have generated
significant interest from property owners; now the city should ensure all homeowners have
an equal opportunity to pursue this desirable use of their land, rather than just those with
the means, expertise, and time.
Still, I believe the planning commission should better clarify new ADU rules, while also
further empowering property owners to build new homes on their own land. The
commission should advise Council on stronger language that:
1.
Makes ADU regulations simpler, especially since small property owners are unlikely
familiar with complex land use principles. Simplification and alignment with our
existing pre-approved ADU ordinance are also essential to ensure the program is
better utilized.
2.
Provide across the board permission for ADUs to be up to two stories in height, as
was intended by the passage of new state laws. There is no reason we should restrict
heights for such a small type of housing, which will result in limited new impacts on
the community. For homeowners, these restrictions will limit access to opportunity
based on neighborhoods, when all should be allowed this same ability. In addition,
Cupertino has a uniquely large number of multigenerational families who deserve
ample space to live together, with caretakers and other loved ones. Transit oriented
development should be focused around true dense, multi family homes, rather than
single story additions.
3.
In line with the above, we should also increase design flexibility by cleanly allowing
for both detached and attached ADUs to accommodate all types of families and
homeowners of all backgrounds and situations.
4.
Provide the same opportunities for single-story and multi-story single family
homeowners.
5.
Remove all mentions of proximity to transit without the context of ADUs.
ADUs are an effective, desirable way to better meet our housing needs, without noticeable
impacts on neighborhoods, while also placing the financial onus on homeowners, who are
demonstrably eager to build these homes. We should be simplifying and incentivizing our
ambitious, thoughtful residents, instead of making the process needlessly challenging.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yvonne Thorstenson
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Housing
Subject:(Strengthen Item 4 on ADUs) or (Clarify and Boost ADU Rules)
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4:33:42 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 Commission,
I’m personally glad our city’s planning commission is taking up the revision of ADU rules,
with the passage of new state laws requiring cities to relax unnecessary rules. I can
personally speak to the need for ADUs as one of many new housing options. When I was a
college student, I lived in a garage->ADU conversion, which provided a rental rate
almost half of the typical market rate housing option. It was the reason I was able to
continue attending school and complete my degree. I believe others should have this
same opportunity!
ADUs have shown to be an effective way to house new families and individuals in
Cupertino and have generated significant interest from property owners; now the city
should ensure all homeowners have an equal opportunity to pursue this desirable use of
their land, rather than just those with the means, expertise, and time.
Still, I believe the planning commission should better clarify new ADU rules, while also
further empowering property owners to build new homes on their own land. The
commission should advise Council on stronger language that:
1.
Makes ADU regulations simpler, especially since small property owners are unlikely
familiar with complex land use principles. Simplification and alignment with our
existing pre-approved ADU ordinance are also essential to ensure the program is
better utilized.
2.
Provide across the board permission for ADUs to be up to two stories in height, as
was intended by the passage of new state laws. There is no reason we should restrict
heights for such a small type of housing, which will result in limited new impacts on
the community. For homeowners, these restrictions will limit access to opportunity
based on neighborhoods, when all should be allowed this same ability. In addition,
Cupertino has a uniquely large number of multigenerational families who deserve
ample space to live together, with caretakers and other loved ones. Transit oriented
development should be focused around true dense, multi family homes, rather than
single story additions.
3.
In line with the above, we should also increase design flexibility by cleanly allowing
for both detached and attached ADUs to accommodate all types of families and
homeowners of all backgrounds and situations.
4.
Provide the same opportunities for single-story and multi-story single family
homeowners.
5.
Remove all mentions of proximity to transit within the context of ADUs.
ADUs are an effective, desirable way to better meet our housing needs, without noticeable
impacts on neighborhoods, while also placing the financial onus on homeowners, who are
demonstrably eager to build these homes. We should be simplifying and incentivizing our
ambitious, thoughtful residents, instead of making the process needlessly challenging.
Thank you for your consideration,
Neil Park-McClintick,
from a family of longtime cupertino residents
From:Philip Nguyen
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Housing
Subject:Clarify and Boost ADU Rules
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4:46:25 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 Commission,
I am pleased that our city’s planning commission is taking up the revision of ADU rules, with
the passage of new state laws requiring cities to relax unnecessary rules. Overall, I believe
our main goals should be to give property owners the freedom and discretion to decide
how to best utilize their own land, and to demonstrate to the State of California that we will
tackle our severe housing and homelessness crisis in good faith. ADUs have shown to be
an effective way to house new families and individuals in Cupertino and have generated
significant interest from property owners; now the city should ensure all homeowners
have an equal opportunity to pursue this desirable use of their land, rather than just
those with the means, expertise, and time.
Still, I believe the planning commission should better clarify new ADU rules, while also
further empowering property owners to build new homes on their own land. The
commission should advise Council on stronger language that:
1.
Makes ADU regulations simpler, especially since small property owners are not
savvy with complex land use principles. Simplification and alignment with our existing
pre-approved ADU ordinance are also essential to ensure the program is better
utilized.
2.
Provide across the board permission for ADUs to be up to two stories in height, as
was intended by the passage of new state laws. There is no reason we should restrict
heights for such a small type of housing, which will result in limited new impacts on
the community. For homeowners, these restrictions will limit access to opportunity
based on neighborhoods, when all should be allowed this same ability. In addition,
Cupertino has a uniquely large number of multigenerational families who deserve
ample space to live together, with caretakers and other loved ones. Transit oriented
development should be focused around true dense, multi family homes, rather than
single story additions.
3.
In line with the above, we should also increase design flexibility by cleanly allowing
for both detached and attached ADUs to accommodate all types of families and
homeowners of all backgrounds and situations.
4.
Provide the same opportunities for single-story and multi-story single family
homeowners.
5.
Remove all mentions of proximity to transit without the context of ADUs.
ADUs are an effective, desirable way to better meet our housing needs, without noticeable
impacts on neighborhoods, while also placing the financial onus on homeowners, who are
demonstrably eager to build these homes. We should be simplifying and incentivizing our
ambitious, thoughtful residents, instead of making the process needlessly challenging.
Thank you for your consideration.
Philip Nguyen
From:Sean Hughes
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Planning - Item 4 - ADU Commentary
Date:Tuesday, November 14, 2023 4:57:29 PM
Attachments:CFA%20Comment_Item%204_11.14.23_PC_.pdf.pdf
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.
Hello,
I would like to submit the attached letter on behalf of CFA’s Steering Committee, for today’s
Planning Commission meeting this evening.
Regards,
Sean Hughes
Policy Director, Cupertino for All
Get Outlook for iOS
November 14,2023
Commentary regarding Two-Story Permit and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)laws
Cupertino for All has been closely following the Housing Element process on behalf
of our constituents,many of whom benefit from not only more housing
opportunities,but also a diversity of the types of housing available.
ADUs are one type of housing where we see greater potential in Cupertino.Across
the state,ADUs have contributed to the production of affordable to moderate
income housing.In particular,they have been especially helpful to Cupertino’s
housing production.Showcased in our Annual Progress Report,most of Cupertino’s
recent housing production consisted largely of ADUs.In addition,the HE draft plans
for even greater production over the next planning period.As such,we hope to see
the City support,rather than constrain,ADU production.This support would also
actively demonstrate the City’s positive intentions for the Department of Housing
and Community Development’s (HCD)review of our updated draft Housing Element.
CFA suggests finding ways to support ADU development that go beyond the
minimum action(s)required by state law.Some changes we would support are:
1.Make our ADU regulations less prescriptive.For example:let ADUs be attached
or detached,and remove the requirements for proximity to a major transit
stop or high quality transit corridor.While we support transit-oriented
development,it is overly prescriptive to require this when an ADU could easily
function as an in-law unit,in which case transit accessibility may be less of a
concern.
2.Enable the creation of two-story/second-story ADUs.
3.Within reason,allow the same design opportunities for single and two-story
ADUs.
We support making changes to ensure the City can support ADU development to its
fullest extent,not just in compliance with state law.
Regards,
The Steering Committee for Cupertino for All