PC 7-8-2025 Written CommunicationsPC 7-8-2025
Oral
Communications
Written
Communications
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Attorney"s Office
Subject:2025-06-24 Planning Commission Meeting-ITEM2 Oversized Parking -THANK YOU
Date:Wednesday, June 25, 2025 5:36:53 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 PC Chair Rao, Vice PC Chair Kosolcharoen and Commissioners,
Thank you for taking the extra time needed to come up with a solution that solves the
unwanted accumulation of oversized vehicles on public streets but DOES NOT punish/add
unreasonable requirements for Cupertino residents who own oversized vehicles and follow
our laws.
I am relieved that the original options were not accepted. Requiring resident RV owners to get
a permit every time we need to park in front of our homes was not reasonable, nor was only
allowing us 2 hours in front of our homes. You took the extra time to work it out.
Thank you!
Peggy Griffin
From:Nicklaus Meier
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Santosh Rao; Deborah
Subject:RVs parked outside Aloft Cupertino
Date:Monday, June 30, 2025 10:59:19 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.
To Whom It May Concern,
For the past 18+ months, there have been several RVs parking on Alves Dr. in front of Aloft
Cupertino. Our guests do not feel safe and this is an eyesore. We are worried that if nothing is
done about this, these small problems can become bigger problems as we have seen in other
Bay Area cities. We have gotten several bad reviews as well due to this. Two of them are
linked below. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Check out this review of Aloft Cupertino on Google Maps
https://goo.gl/maps/ZNRLjzuA5TYbHWKX7
Check out this review of Aloft Cupertino on Google Maps
https://goo.gl/maps/9gksn92N9e7PFL3m6
Nick Meier, CHRM
Chief Revenue Officer
Shashi Hospitality Group
10200 North De Anza Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Cell: 702-810-7275
nmeier@shashigroup.com
Shashi Hotel Mountain View | The Nest Hotel Palo Alto
Aloft Cupertino | Aloft Sunnyvale | Aloft San Jose Cupertino
From:Gill Doyle
To:Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf; City of Cupertino Planning
Commission
Cc:Emi Sugiyama
Subject:Tessellations eliminating on-campus parking
Date:Tuesday, July 1, 2025 11:56:44 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.
Tessellations told the City in its March 14 "Project Description" that it wants to eliminate a
parking lot behind the school. That parking lot is said to accommodate 20 staff cars and was
key to resolving the parking issue that prompted neighbors here to collect signatures and apply
for a permit parking zone around the school. The neighborhood withdrew its application for a
permit parking zone when Tessellations was granted its CUP and a Parking Exception that
required it to provide 148 parking spaces — 67 of those on campus. (The other 81 were
supposed to be at New Life Church.)
Now Tessellations, apparently for aesthetic reasons, wants to eliminate that improvised lot
behind the school. It says that it will shuttle those 20 staff members to and from New Life
Church though it admits that "for some staff it may be challenging, particularly for those who
prefer to have their vehicles on campus for emergency situations — whether it's for . . . a
child's emergency, personal health concerns, or scheduled appointments."
This is not a good idea. It's not realistic to think that staff will not want to continue to drive
their cars to work. If 20 on-campus parking spots are eliminated, we should expect to see some
staff members return to parking their vehicles on the streets around the school. This teacher
shuttle idea is nearly as fanciful as the school's no-drive contract with parents, whereby
parents will supposedly promise not to let their high school kids drive to school. Both of these
schemes — the teacher shuttle idea and the no-drive contract with parents — will result in
more all-day parking on the streets around the school. The doubt that Tessellations expresses
in its March 14 project description — "For some staff it may be challenging" — shows that
Tessellations understands that its teacher shuttle idea is problematic.
Tessellations shouldn't be thinking about eliminating on-campus parking. If it gets permission
to add grades 11 and 12, it is actually going to need more on-campus parking for the high
school students who will undoubtedly drive to school, despite any contract with parents.
- Gill Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive)
From:V Lentfer
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Fwd: Public input for today"s Cupertino Planning Commission Agenda Item #2.
Date:Tuesday, July 8, 2025 10:50:41 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.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: V Lentfer <vlentfer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Public input for today's Cupertino Planning Commission Agenda Item #2.
To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.gov>, <piug@cupertino.gov>,
<rwang@cupertino.gov>, <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>, <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>
CC: Jim Lentfer <jim.lentfer@gmail.com>, Parimal Kopardekar
<Parimal.Kopardekar@gmail.com>
Dear Cupertino officials,
I am a homeowner and I am concerned about urban fire in Cupertino, especially in my area (Baxley
Court off of Linda Vista Drive) which was recently designated as a higher risk fire zone.
I understand that you are seeking public input on updates to policies to curtail risks from fire
hazards. I have 3 main concerns/suggestions:
1.
Having seen the preliminary Evulich Court submittal, it looks like this development will
significantly increase fire risk due to the higher density of construction. It seems like this would
be a great location to place a new fire station to help protect this neighborhood and the entire
community. Please build a new fire station at the Evulich site prior to construction of the
new homes.
2.
The Evulich Court plan only provides one way in and one way out, which seems like it could lead
to potential evacuation and firefighting problems for a new development. We are retired and have
many elderly neighbors who are in the immediate vicinity of the new development which elevates
our concern. Please provide multiple accesses from the development to Linda Vista Drive.
3.
We are also concerned about fire protection during the Evulich construction project. My family
and I are quite fearful that we could see a repeat of the huge Santana Row inferno of 2002.
Please provide additional fire protection during construction, including the
aforementioned fire station.
Sincerely,
Veronica Lentfer
PC 7-8-2025
Item No.2
Health and
Safety Study
Session
Written
Communications
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh (she/her)
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2025-07-08 Planning Commission Meeting-ITEM2 Study Session on GP Health and Safety Chapter
Date:Monday, July 7, 2025 5:06:42 PM
Attachments:image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR
THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Planning Commission and Planning Manager Piu Ghosh,
I am glad you are updating this chapter of our General Plan. We are long overdue for an
earthquake and as our climate keeps changing, planning for this change is critical.
Regarding Attachment 1-Memo from Placeworks dated June 24, 2025, PAGE 2 of 5
REQUEST: Can you please provide a copy of the “Local Hazard Mitigation Plan” BEFORE
tomorrow’s meeting so we can review it?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2025-07-08 Planning Commission Meeting-ITEM2 GP Health and Safety update
Date:Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:38:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE
MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Planning Commission and Staff,
I request that when the Health and Safety chapter of the General Plan is updated that you
consider the following:
1. Financial burdens to homeowners
a. If no modifications are being done to a home, do not require homes to be
retrofitted/upgraded.
b. DO NOT add annual or periodic inspections to homes.
2. Emergency Preparedness and Response
a. Identify key facilities that should have battery backup capabilities and move
towards providing that capability.
b. Healthcare-encourage healthcare providers into our city.
3. Water pressure
a. Please add water pressure requirements for all areas. Be precise!
i. In the Linda Vista area, I’ve been told that some residents have had to
install water pumps because of the lack of adequate water pressure for
daily needs, much less in a fire situation! With added density this
problem will increase.
ii. Require the added density to provide the added water pressure.
4. Fire support/fire stations
a. Provide the amount of fire stations required based on the max density of each
area.
i. If an additional fire station is needed please specify the detailed
requirements needed.
b. In high fire areas, please specify
i. Max density
ii. Building materials to be used or prohibited for new development.
5. Hazardous Waste and Materials
Identify sites that must have an environmental site assessment.
a.
i. These should include sites near/adjacent to current/old gas stations,
current/old tanks, current/old dry cleaners.
6. Flood and Inundation Hazards
a. DO NOT allow non-residential uses in floodplains unless they are just parks, open
spaces, recreational uses.
i. Avoid any businesses, healthcare offices, emergency services, public
health facilities, schools/daycares.
7. Climate Change Resilience
a. Encourage lighter colored roofs on homes (discount on permits?).
b. Trees-identify trees that are more beneficial to our environment/air quality/shade
and discourage less “useful” trees.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
PC 7-8-2025
Item No.3
Municipal
Code
Amendment
Written
Communications
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Cc:Gian Martire; City Clerk
Subject:2025-07-08 Planning Commission Meeting-ITEM3 - Muni Code updates for ADUs
Date:Monday, July 7, 2025 4:16:30 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Planning Commission and Staff,
I thank the staff, commissions and council for continuing to uphold our laws in spite of the multitude
of laws passed by our state legislators who have made and continue to make planning, safety and
preservation of neighborhood characteristics, retail and services non-existent. Thank you for
continuing to try to make things better or minimize harm. It matters and I, for one, appreciate your
efforts!
That said…here are my questions below.
In Attachment 1-Draft Resolution, Page 8 of 15, Red-lined muni code
Q1: This table doesn’t include duplexes yet it mentions them in the table. Does this need to be
corrected or reworded?
In Attachment 1-Draft Resolution, Page 10 of 15, Red-lined muni code
Q2: Referring to #4 Maximum Size (of an ADU)…Is this true that the state mandates no limit on the
size of a streamlined ADU? Can you explain this during the meeting so everyone can
understand/hear it?
In Attachment 1-Draft Resolution, Page 13 of 15, Red-lined muni code
Q3: The list of zoning districts is MISSING (R1-a) Semi-Rural in row I of this table.
Thank you again for your work and efforts.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:James Lloyd
To:Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf; City of Cupertino Planning
Commission
Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office;
City Clerk
Subject:public comment re agenda item 3 for the July 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting
Date:Monday, July 7, 2025 4:59:59 PM
Attachments:Cupertino - ADU Ordinance - 7 July 2025.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.
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment concerning
item 3 on the agenda for the July 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, a proposed update to the
City’s regulations for the development of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory
dwelling units (“JADUs”).
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
james@calhdf.org
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Jul 7, 2025
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
By email: srao@cupertino.org; Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov; dfung@cupertino.gov;
slindskog@cupertino.gov; SScharf@cupertino.gov;
planningcommission@cupertino.gov
CC: piug@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov;
CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov
Re: Proposed Amendments to the City’s ADU Regulations
Dear Cupertino Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter as a public comment
concerning item 3 on the agenda for the July 8, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, a
proposed update to the City’s regulations for the development of accessory dwelling units
(“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”).
CalHDF applauds the City for updating its ADU regulations to keep pace with changes in
state law. However, CalHDF writes to flag a few specific legal issues with the ordinance,
which the city should address before approving the ordinance.
Background
The law gives local governments authority to enact zoning ordinances that implement a
variety of development standards on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314.) The standards in these local
ordinances are limited by state law so as not to overly restrict ADU development. (See id.)
Separately from local ADU ordinances, Government Code section 66323 establishes a
narrower set of ADU types that local governments have a ministerial duty to approve.
“Notwithstanding Sections 66314 to 66322 ... a local agency shall ministerially approve” these
types of ADUs. (Id. at subd. (a).) This means that ADUs that satisfy the minimal requirements
of section 66323 must be approved regardless of any contrary provisions of the local ADU
ordinance. (Ibid.) Local governments may not impose their own standards on such ADUs.
(Gov. Code, § 66323, subd. (b) [“A local agency shall not impose any objective development or
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
hi@calhdf.org
design standard that is not authorized by this section upon any accessory dwelling unit that
meets the requirements of any of paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a).”].)
In addition, ADUs that qualify for the protections of Government Code section 66323, like
other ADUs, must be processed by local governments within 60 days of a complete permit
application submittal. (Gov. Code, § 66317, subd. (a).)
State law also prohibits creating regulations on ADU development not explicitly allowed by
state law. Government Code Section 66315 states, “No additional standards, other than those
provided in Section 66314, shall be used or imposed, including an owner-occupant
requirement, except that a local agency may require that the property may be used for
rentals of terms 30 days or longer.”
Required Height Limits
Tables 19.112.030A and 19.112.030B impose a height limit of 18 feet on detached, new
construction ADUs developed pursuant to Government Code section 66323 on single and
multifamily properties, respectively.
However, Government Code section 66321, subdivision (b)(4)(B) requires cities to allow an
additional two feet in height (from 18 to 20 feet) for an ADU to match the roof pitch of the
primary dwelling, provided the ADU is within one half mile of a major transit stop or a
high-quality transit corridor. Page 14-15 of the January 2025 HCD ADU Handbook addresses
the duty of a local agency to allow the additional two feet of height in these locations.
The City should amend its code to grant the additional two feet of height (from 18 to 20 feet)
for ADUs within one half mile of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor.
Non-Objective Design Standards
Table 19.112.040(I) requires that a non-streamlined ADU’s design “Shall be compatible with
the architectural style and materials of the principal structure.”
However, cities may impose only “objective standards” on ADUs. (Gov. Code, § 66314, subd.
(b)(1); see also Gov. Code, § 66315 [stating local jurisdictions may only impose standards
authorized by section 66314].) “Objective standards” are “standards that involve no personal
or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an
external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the
development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” (Gov. Code, §
66313, subd. (i).) HCD’s ADU Handbook (see pages 13, 35, and 45) confirms that, pursuant to
state law, only objective standards may be imposed on ADUs.
A rule that requires ADUs to be “compatible with the architectural style and materials of the
principal structure” is not an objective standard. The applicant cannot know ex ante and
2 of 3
with certainty under what circumstances the City will judge a design to be appropriately
compatible.
The City must amend this section of code to make this design standard objective.
◄►
CalHDF applauds the City for amending its code to keep pace with changes to state law.
However, the City should make sure that its ADU regulations comply with state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for
increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income
households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3