The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 07-01-2025 Item No. 16 Study Session - Oversized Vehicle Parking_Written CommunicationsCC 07-1-2025 Item No. 16 Study Session - Oversized Vehicle Parking Written Communications From:Peggy Griffin To:Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Floy Andrews Cc:City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia Subject:2025-07-01 City Council Meeting-ITEM 16 Study Session on Parking - NOTICING ISSUE Date:Sunday, June 29, 2025 4:54:09 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 THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and City Attorney Floyd, Please know that I am FOR the requirement to move a vehicle a noticeable distance after 72 hours. That said, I’m concerned with the wording of Agenda Item #16 because it implies that it will only impact oversized vehicles when in reality it has the potential of impacting ALL VEHICLES parked on public streets. “Section 11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours” applies to all vehicles, even cars. During the Planning Commission meeting on 6-24-2025 a man named “Gopal” wanted to speak about parking related to ADUs. Right now, there are many cases where only minimal if any parking is required for new developments. With people parking on the street and working from home, it is conceivable that they would park their cars for extended periods. To have an open discussion with input from people, they need to know that it could impact them too, even if they don’t have an oversized vehicle. Maybe the “Subject” can be modified someway? Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2025-07-01 City Council Meeting-ITEM 16 Study Session on Parking - USE CASES TO CONSIDER Date:Sunday, June 29, 2025 5:34:19 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, City Councilmembers and Staff, I will not be able to attend the study session so I’m providing my input in advance. I’m glad the city has decided to fix our parking regulations to close loopholes and make them enforceable yet not punish Cupertino residents or making it more difficult for them. Just for disclosure purposes, my husband and I are long-time RV owners (20 years) and have rented them before owning so I have some insight on how/what a resident RV owner might need to do on a city street, especially in front of their home or while traveling visiting other cities. I made a list of all the large vehicles I see around our neighborhood from time to time. Ideally, the proposed changes should cover these cases with the desired effect, whatever that be. TYPES OF VEHICLES AROUND TOWN Plumbers, electricians, gardeners, construction and remodeling vehicles Delivery trucks (FedEx, Amazon, UPS, furniture/moving vans, 18-wheelers) Shuttle vans, Hopper vans, Apple vans RVs Long vans (over 20 ft) – either a Class-B RV or a work van Long bed pickup trucks Buses Boat trailers Trailers USE CASES – SITUATIONS TO CONSIDER WHERE RVs FOLLOW EXISTING RULES Some situations where a resident of Cupertino would need to park their RV or boat or trailer for more than 2 hours on a city street (in front or near their house): Preparing to leave early the next day – Often they connect the car they will be towing behind the RV the night before and have the RV plus car parked in front of their house ready to go in the early morning. An RV is stored elsewhere and is brought from storage to the home to load up. It often takes all day/multiple days to load up and prep the RV. The RV probably then stays in front overnight for an early start the next day. Usually, we store RVs empty. The RV is stored in the backyard but needs to be moved so workers can have access, room or prevent damage. This isn’t always planned. It can happen on the weekend. It can happen when workers from your neighbor’s house need you to move it. RV is rented for a family vacation – loading an empty RV can take at least a day. Often they wait until the next morning to leave. Family or friends who are traveling in an RV come to visit. The resident has a business and does not have room to park the vehicle. This gets dicey considering that now days developers are not providing adequate parking. Some newer developments are shortening the length of parking spaces from 20 ft to 18 ft which don’t allow some trucks or vans to be parked on-site in a parking space. USES CASES – SITUATIONS TO CONSIDER THAT ARE AN ISSUE A owner of an oversized vehicle such as an RV parks on the street for more than 72 hours in the same location without moving it – whether they are a resident or not. A car owner that parks their car on the street in the same location for more than 72 hours without moving it– whether they are a resident or not. Huge commuter buses parked on the east side of Bandley between Stevens Creek Blvd and Alves parked for hours. It’s dangerous because cars coming out of the Marina parking lot cannot see around them and the cars turning onto Bandley from Stevens Creek cannot see the cars coming out of the driveways. Large number of oversized vehicles congregating in one area over an extended period of time, beyond 72 hours without moving. IMPORTANT NOTES ON REVOKING ACCESS If you choose the issuance of permits, the city can always revoke a permit if the rules are not followed. If you choose to enter vehicles in some type of database, the vehicle can be flagged as not following the regulations and therefore equivalent to revoking its ability to park on the street. I’ve heard comments like “Well, we only enforce our laws if there is a complaint.” Implying that it’s okay to disobey our laws so long as nobody reports you! This attitude leads to people not obeying other laws and the problem grows. REQUEST: When you look at changing the city’s vehicle parking ordinances, please keep these in mind and make sure the desired outcome is obtained for these various situations without punishing Cupertino residents who follow our laws. Please make the resulting vehicle parking ordinances fit reality. When laws don’t make sense, people ignore them. Thank you. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Yvonne Strom To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Comment on possible updates to oversized vehicle parking restrictions (item 16) Date:Monday, June 30, 2025 2:06:24 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. Esteemed members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing about the July 1 Study Session (item 16) involving possible updates to oversized vehicle parking restrictions. The Cupertino planning commission has recommended a permit system but the plan is unwieldy for law enforcement, ineffective, and a burden for Cupertino residents. The permit plan for RVs will not work because more and more people have found no other option for affordable housing. How will enforcement be better with an expensive permit plan? People still need a place to sleep at night. Instead of a permit system I suggest that more research is needed. For example, what are the best practices for smaller cities to manage the unhoused? Could RV parking only be restricted in certain over-utilized areas, like where the most complaints arise? For example, the Rotating Safe Car Park offers overnight parking in church parking lots for people sleeping in their cars. There have been zero complaints from neighbors over the last eight years because the location changes every month. The impact is spread out. There is so much cruelty in the world right now. Let's work to find a non-punitive solution that will work for everyone. In community, Yvonne Thorstenson Cupertino resident and RSCP volunteer From:Deborah To:City Clerk Subject:July 1, 2025 City Council Agenda; Item #16, 25-14050 Date:Monday, June 30, 2025 11:27:58 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Council Members, Thank you for reviewing the CMC regarding oversized vehicles in the City. I know that in other cities, it appears they have designated areas that these vehicles can park, but they they are highly industrialized. Our local businesses have some issues with trailer homes being parked near their entrances as it deters customers from entering or using the business. I am not sure what new rules would prevent this. Nominally, near some of our hotels some have parked for the regulated amount of time (I believe it’s still 72 hours before they have to move) but you can see how this would hurt hotel business particularly when they have not quite recovered from the effects of the pandemic similar to a lot of our small businesses. I ask that the business community be considered when making changes to these regulations as it will affect the health of our economy and therefore revenue to the City. Thank you for your consideration., Deb Deborah L. Feng, MBA CEO O. 408 2527054 ext.101 Deb@cupertino-chamber.org www.cupertino-chamber.org From:Liang Chao To:City Clerk Subject:Oversized vehicle parking ordinance from other cities Date:Friday, June 27, 2025 1:45:03 PM Please add this to the written communication of the 7/1 Council meeting. The enclosed email thread includes the original agenda request, which contains the information on similar ordinances on parking in other cities. Liang Chao Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 11:15 AM To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: Fw: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking Please add this to the written communication for Item 14 TBD list to provide context of the agenda request. Liang Chao Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 10:34 PM To: Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Valenzuela, Neil <Neil.Valenzuela@shf.sccgov.org> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov>; Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking Adding Vice Mayor, with whom I have discussed some of this. I looked into the Muni Code for 72-hour parking restriction in Saratoga and Los Altos, who are also under the same Sheriff's Office: Los Altos's version: "For the purposes of this section, a vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours if it has not been moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet during such seventy-two (72) hour period." Saratoga's version: "A vehicle shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved and remained at least one mile from its original parked location for at least twenty-four hours during the seventy-two-hour period." I found Fremont's version is similar to Mountain View's version: Fremont's version: "any vehicle that has been parked in the same location for 72 hours move at least 1,000 feet from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least 24 hours" (adopted Nov. 2024) Fremont on restriction near residential streets: "Additionally, oversized vehicles, including any attached trailers, vehicles, or loads which exceed 22 feet in length, and/or 6 feet in width and 7 feet in height, are no longer allowed to park on any public street within 100 feet of a residential property line. The ordinance allows for limited exemptions of loading/unloading, emergency vehicles and commercial deliveries. If the oversized vehicle is not moved within 24 hours after receiving a warning notice, the vehicle could receive a citation and will be at risk for getting towed. " (adopted Nov. 2024) I realize that restrictions on oversized vehicles are more complicated since we need to consider exemptions to allow construction vehicles etc and we need to define over- sized vehicles. So, in the first version, I would just consider the minor modification on parking violation, which would not require a study session. For restrictions on oversized vehicles, we would likely need a study session first to get public and council input, which could be considered as a part of the FY 2025-27 Work Program. =========== Los Altos Muni Code https://library.municode.com/ca/los_altos/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=TIT8VETR_CH8.20STSTPA 8.20.090 - Parking for more than 72 hours. No person who owns or has possession, custody, or control of any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon any street, alley, or public place continuously for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two (72) hours. For the purposes of this section, a vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours if it has not been moved at least one thousand (1,000) feet during such seventy-two (72) hour period. (Prior code § 3-2.913) 8.20.100 - Removal of vehicles parked more than 72 hours. Any regularly employed and salaried officer of the police department may remove, or cause to be removed, any vehicle which has been parked or left standing upon a street, highway, or public parking lot for seventy-two (72) or more consecutive hours. (Prior code § 3-2.914) Saratoga Muni Code https://library.municode.com/ca/saratoga/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=CH9MOVETR_ART9-25PAREAPALHI 9-25.030 - Parking of certain oversize vehicles on residential streets. (a) No person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any commercial vehicle recreational vehicle, boat or trailer, shall park or leave standing such vehicle upon any street in a residential district or abutting any property or area within a residential district for a period of seventy-two consecutive hours or more. A vehicle shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved and remained at least one mile from its original parked location for at least twenty-four hours during the seventy-two-hour period. (b) Unattached boats and trailers shall not park or stand upon any public street. (c) For the purposes of this section: (1) Trailer means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed for industrial, professional, or commercial purposes, for carrying property on its own structure, and for being drawn by a motor vehicle. (2) Commercial vehicle shall have the meaning set forth in section 9-10.040; (3) Recreational vehicle means any vehicle used for recreation and designed for human habitation for recreational, emergency, or other occupancy, and not including passenger vehicles. (Ord. No. 394, § 1(Att. A), 12-7-2022) 9-25.040 - Application of other laws. The provisions of this Article are in addition to other parking regulations which are or may be imposed by the laws of the State and the provisions of this Code and shall not relieve any person from the duty to observe other and more restrictive provisions of the Vehicle Code or this Code. 9-25.050 - Enforcement of Article. It shall be the duty of all policemen and Community Service Officers appointed for such purpose and all deputies of the County Sheriff performing police services in the City to enforce the regulations set forth in this Article. Liang Chao Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:37 PM To: Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Valenzuela, Neil <Neil.Valenzuela@shf.sccgov.org> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking Adding Captain Neil. Captain, What do you think about a potential change in parking regulation to require a vehicle to move by 1000 feet after 72 hours? And not return to the same spot within. 24 hours. This mirrors the regulation in Mountain View. In terms of implementation, I suppose that this would be complaints based like other Muni code enforcement. So, there is no need to track every parked vehicle. Only a few ones where a complaint is submitted for violating this code. Thank you. Liang Liang Chao Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:26 PM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: RE: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for 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. Thank you for this information, Mayor. I appreciate the research! From a legal perspective, I believe an updated like this could be implemented in short order. Curious whether we would need to loop in the County Sheriff’s department? I assume the County Sheriff is the entity that enforces the parking ordinance. I think we should take a quick look at whatever MOU or other agreement the City has with the County. I would be inclined to mirror Mountain View’s version. I like its simplicity. Best, Floy From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 7:34 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.gov> Subject: Agenda Item Request: Minor Modification to Muni Code for Parking *** EXTERNAL SENDER *** I learned that the cities around us have revised their Muni Code to address the issue of RV parking and we are lacking behind. I would like to propose a minor modification to the Muni Code for parking to address the issue that a vehicle could occupy the same section of a public street 24x7 as long as they move the vehicle by 6 inches. This is against the original intent of the Muni Code 11.24.130. I have included relevant Muni Code sections from Mountain VIew and Sunnyvale, in addition to Cupertino's Muni Code below. We could consider the two options: Mountain View's version: Any vehicle must be moved at least one thousand (1000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure. Sunnyvale's version: Pushing or moving a vehicle a short distance will not be considered compliance with this section. Additionally, successive acts of parking shall be presumed to be a single act of parking within the meaning of this section when the vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding the parking limitations prescribed by this section. I hope that such minor modification could be considered in a timely manner. Thank you. Liang ============ Current Cupertino Muni Code 11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours. No person who owns or has in his possession, custody, or control any vehicle or trailer shall park such vehicle or trailer upon any public street or alley for more than a consecutive period of seventy-two hours. (Ord. 843, § 6, 1977) Mountain View Muni Code: SEC. 19.72. - Seventy-Two (72) hour parking limit—Twenty-Four (24) hour no return. - Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two (72) consecutive hours must be moved at least one thousand (1000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure. Sunnyvale Muni Code § 10.16.120 Use of streets or public parking facilities for storage of vehicles prohibited. It is unlawful for any person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any vehicle, including a boat or trailer, to park or leave such vehicle upon any street, alley, or public parking facility for a period of seventy-two consecutive hours or more. The intent of this section is to limit parking of vehicles, boats and trailers to seventy-two consecutive hours. A vehicle or trailer shall be considered to have been parked or left standing for seventy-two or more consecutive hours if it has remained inoperable or has not been moved. An inoperable vehicle is a vehicle that cannot be moved under its own power or a vehicle which cannot operate legally and safely on the highways of the state. Pushing or moving a vehicle a short distance or attempting to rub away the tire marking will not be considered compliance with this section. Additionally, successive acts of parking shall be presumed to be a single act of parking within the meaning of this section when the vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding the parking limitations prescribed by this section. (Ord. 2435-93 § 1; Ord. 2633-00 § 1; Ord. 2925-10 § 1) Liang Chao Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 8:05 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: RV parking resources Yes. Please direct me to county resources. Below is a question on city code enforcement: "California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) 11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. " But they can move by 6 inches every day and still park in generally the same space? Or they have to move by at least the length of the vehicle so that the same "space" is not occupied by the same vehicle?" Thanks. Appreciate your attention on this issue of high interest from the community . Liang Liang Chao Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 5:58 PM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>; Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov> Subject: RE: RV parking resources Mayor Chao, we can assist in directing your questions to the County planning office. Please advice, Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.gov (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 10:04 AM To: Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: RV parking resources Where are legal RV parking places within Santa Clara County? Other RV parking resources? Has the Santa Clara County adopted any RV ordinance? Or surrounding cities, like Sunnyvale? (in case the information is readily available to staff) If we do not wish RVs to occupy our streets, I hope to know where they can park legally with and without RV facilities. "California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) 11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. " But they can move by 6 inches every day and still park in generally the same space? Or they have to move by at least the length of the vehicle so that the same "space" is not occupied by the same vehicle? Thanks for the information, Liang Liang Chao Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 8:52 AM To: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: RV parking resources Good morning Mayor Chao, I have provided answers to your questions regarding RVs below: Mary Avenue is not specifically designated for RV Parking. The Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program cannot accommodate RVs at this time. The RSCP provides parking spaces for passenger vehicles on private property. The risk of an RV breaking down or discharging grey or black water is very high. The private property owners are not likely to accept the risk. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22651(k) and Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) 11.24.130 state that vehicles cannot be parked in the same spot on a public street for more than 72 hours. CVC 22651 (k) and CMC 11.24.130 aim to prevent abandoned vehicles from being stored on the street. Neither the CVC nor the CMC specifically prevents RVs from parking on public streets, and unless posted otherwise, all legally parked vehicles can be on public streets. Neither the CVC nor the CMC specify the distance a vehicle must travel to have been considered "moved." While mostly complaint-based, Code Enforcement regularly patrols areas of the city known to have RVs parked to enforce the 72-hour and street sweeping rules. Of all the parking citations issued by Code Enforcement, violations for CVC 22651 (k) and street sweeping are the most common. In FY 24, approximately 280 citations or warnings were issued. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you, Tom Tom Chin Emergency Manager City Manager's Office TomC@cupertino.gov (408) 777-1310 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 11:10 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Cc: Tom Chin <TomC@cupertino.gov> Subject: RV parking resources Given the high interest in RV Parking issue right now, I hope to understand what resources there are for RV parking in Cupertino and surrounding areas or the County. I heard that Mary Ave is a designated RV parking site? Does the rotating Safe Parking program accommodate RVs? I think it's important to reasonably accommodate RV parking to support RV dwellers. But they do not have the right to occupy the public street 24-7 as their own private parking space. Thus, I’d like to know what’s the practice in terms of issuing fines when muni codes for street parking or street cleaning are violated. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Mayor City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Written communications on oversized vehicle parking ordinance from PC 06/24/25 meeting. Date:Monday, June 30, 2025 10:08:14 AM Attachments:Written Communications (Updated 6252025).pdf Dear City Clerk, Would you please include the below in written communication for agenda item 16 for the 07/01/25 CC meeting. Dead Mayor Chao and Council members, Please find enclosed and linked below the written communications from the 06/24/25 PC meeting on oversized vehicle parking ordinance which you may find to be relevant for agenda item 16 for the 07/01/25 CC meeting. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=1249178&GUID=D0BBFCF1- A632-4D95-8F58-BC940409EBBB Thank you. Santosh Rao Chair, Planning Commission SRao@cupertino.gov PC 6-24-2025 Oral Communications Written Communications From:E. Poon To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Jennifer Griffin; Rhoda Fry Subject:Staples site to be developed Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 6:15:30 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. Many people would find it helpful to know that they can return packages at Staples. Whole Foods Market is commonly known as a location for returns, but Staples is not. It would be useful to have Staples eventually take up a location somewhere else in Cupertino, with a smaller footprint. We just heard that in San Francisco, Nordstrom is returning with a smaller store. Staples could survive well and help the community by planning along the same lines. The future of retail in Cupertino is really in jeopardy. More ideas are needed, or it will become a Retail desert. Eventually, the sea of townhouses will not be attractive, as there are not enough essential stores for residents. In the lot, there is the Fontana Restaurant. I have always wondered why a lovely building like that is vacant. What was the history? It is one of the more interesting- looking buildings around here. It is a pity to have it demolished. Is is really a relatively new building? Why do we waste a nice looking building? I heard the idea to preserve it as a Club House for the new townhome development. It is a brilliant idea. The developer might object to "losing" land, which might be part of the townhouse development, but they can be creative about land use and make up for it. For example, they can consider an architectural style called the BackSplit, which is essentially a stacked duplex ( 5 levels with 2 levels for the top unit, 3 levels for the bottom unit) which has a low elevation that looks like a two story high building from the street. It is found in Toronto, Canada, in some neighborhoods. It uses the tri-level concept to stack 5 stories and still maintain a low profile. Such an efficient use of land as the Toronto BackSplit will allow the developer to keep the Fontana Restaurant as the Club House. This distinctive looking building will elevate the style of the entire complex. We hope the developer will be open to new ideas. Regards, Emily Poon Resident of 18 years From:Vivek Sagdeo To:sherman.wang@gmail.com; stephanieyang2010@gmail.com; 12bellabarb@gmail.com; Luke Connolly; Emi Sugiyama; Rajiv Chamraj; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Liang Chao Subject:Followup on the public hearing on 20840 Stevens creek Date:Tuesday, June 10, 2025 8:20:19 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. Hello, It was quite illuminating to attend the hearing. As a block leader, I would like to request a hearing with the Scofield block, which is affected by this project. We had vigorous activity related to Scofield MFU. We had no activity at all for this and let us discuss this before approving. Mayor, since architectural committee did not wait to hear our feedback, hope that you will be able to discuss it with us before approval. Vivek Vivek Sagdeo block leader 20821 Scofield From:Susanne Chang To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Santosh Rao; Liang Chao Subject:Cupertino Memorial Park - Pickleball Noise Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:16:39 AM Attachments:Pickleball Noise at Cupertino Memorial Park.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. To: Cupertino City Council and Planning Committee Members Subject: Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball Noise Issue From: David and Susanne Chang 21143 Christensen Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014 Date: June 12, 2025 Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Committee Members: We raised the pickleball noise issues to Cupertino City Council and Planning Committee Members on August 14, 2023 and again January 10, 2025, yet there are no resolutions or improvements made to the issues, Instead, the city has allowed the problem to be further aggravated with no visible progress to alleviate: one more tennis court has been converted into 4 pickleball courts making a total of 8 courts allowing 32 people playing as well as spectators are present. Pickleball games tend to be much louder with players yelling and jeering during the game and certainly afterwards. This has brought even more noise and traffic onto Christensen Drive. Players park cars on the street, ignoring the “Permit Parking” and “No Parking Any Time” signs. Pickup, dropoff, and food delivery cars are constantly circling our formerly quiet street with children - including our grandchildren - playing, and cars speed off recklessly. The Cupertino Pickleball Club has grown to 1,000+ members, majority of the players are non-Cupertino residents who do not pay property tax to support Cupertino City matters. Players start playing early in the morning once daylight breaks until the lights turn off at 9:09pm. This pickleball noise is in violation of the City of Cupertino’s own Municipal Code Chapter 10.48 Community Noise Control, where this sustained level of noise is exceeding the daytime residential and non-residential maximum noise levels of 60dBA. When the hard surface of the pickleball racket connects with the hard surface of the ball, sound waves vibrate rapidly, registering a decibel level of ~70 dBA at 100 feet from the court. Consider how much noise is generated when 32 people are playing at the same time. Our past and current feedback and complaints from the Memorial Park pickleball courts have yet to be addressed; instead, our physical home, mental health, and general well being as Cupertino residents of over four decades continue to be exacerbated. We request that Cupertino City to set an ordinance in regulating the players using the USA Pickleball quiet category-compliant paddle sanctioned for recreational use, proven to reduce noise by 50 percent. Also to set the starting time at 9am to reduce early morning noise. Appreciate your response with proposed resolutions; other residents are also sharing similar concerns so we’d like to resolve this respectfully and cooperatively. Thanks Susanne and David Chang From: valerie <vjmc1124@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 7:11 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>; planningcommissions@cupertino.org Subject: CEQA and traffic impact for McClellan Rd SB 330 project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, I understand this is a bit late for today's meeting at 6:45. But please include the below request in written communication for the ongoing meeting now. Dear Mayor Chao and City Council Members, As a long time Cupertino resident near McClellan Rd SB 330 project, I believe the proposed 27 unit townhomes is not a safe dwelling design for the current neighbors and the future residents. Please conduct a full CEQA analysis and traffic impact study for the McClellan Rd SB 330 project, and share the results with the community. Thank you very much for your attention. vj From: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 1:34 PM To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.gov>; Tracy Kosolcharoen <Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov>; David Fung <dfung@cupertino.gov>; Seema Lindskog <slindskog@cupertino.gov>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.gov>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.gov>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.gov>; Emi Sugiyama <EmiS@cupertino.gov>; Ravi Kumar <ravi4biz@gmail.com>; Karsten Chin <edmk6@aol.com>; Denise <denise_menon@yahoo.com>; Sarah McLaren <Sarahkmclaren@gmail.com>; Veronica Law <veronica.law@gmail.com>; Cathy Tang <cathyktang@yahoo.com>; Jinn Su <jinnsu@yahoo.com>; Natalie Zhu <yzhu.natalie@gmail.com>; Howard & Janet <janhowhill@mac.com>; Dean Tatsuno <dataai@hotmail.com>; chenglei liu <chenglei.liusjsu@gmail.com>; C F <carlf9121@yahoo.com>; Frank's friend <Liuziqivivia@gmail.com>; Grace Hsue <grace_hsue@yahoo.com>; Sean Leu <seanleu@yahoo.com>; Bindeeya Desai <bindeeya@comcast.net>; Chen Yu Lee <chenyulee260@gmail.com>; William H. Kerr <WHKerr@comcast.net>; James Wang <jameswang95014@yahoo.com>; Ashok Natesan <ashok.natesan@gmail.com>; Huafei Wang <huafeiwang1991@gmail.com>; Rahul Shinkre <shinkre@yahoo.com>; Chinh <chinhster@gmail.com>; Meena & Pinaki Mukerji <mpinaki@gmail.com>; Vic Menon <victor.menon@gmail.com> Subject: Tessellations shuttle solution 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 live near the school and represent 29 households that have signed a petition that asks the City to deny Tessellations’ request for permission to operate a high school at the old Regnart Elementary site. In December 2023 Tessellations was granted a Conditional Use Permit that allowed it to teach preK through 9. Tessellations promised to move grade 9 to a separate campus in the fall of 2025. Quoting Tessellations: ”Note . . . that high school will only be 9th grade on the current campus, and only for one year. In future years, we plan to move the high school to another site, so from then onward the current campus will be PK-8th.” [“Tessellations Project Description for Cupertino Planning Division” (November 2023)] Tessellations got permission to teach a maximum of 300 students at the Regnart site and told the City Council that it wasn’t interested in adding more students. Again quoting Tessellations: “In terms of our philosophy on the school, we don’t really want any more than 300 students just for our emotional safety and comfort . . . There’s social evidence that that’s a really great number to stay at in terms of the population knowing each other.” [Co-founder Grace Stanat at City Council meeting 12/5/23] Tessellations is applying now for a revised Conditional Use Permit that would allow it to grow to 425 students. It’s asking for permission to add grades 10, 11, and 12. Despite these plans to grow the school, Tessellations says that it will keep its staff at its current max of 85. When Tessellations opened in 2023 it had 141 students. Today it has 268 students and plans to grow to 425. There are traffic and parking problems today that will only get worse when another 125 cars are added to the morning drop off and afternoon pick up. Remember: Tessellations is not a neighborhood school. Nearly all of its students come from outside the area and must be driven to school or will drive themselves. Before the City considers allowing the school to expand, residents around the school would like to see the City and school address existing traffic and parking problems. Tessellations itself has come up with a great idea that it should be encouraged to pursue. The school has talked about having parents drop off and pick up their kids at an improvised shuttle station — New Life Church, for instance. The school would then shuttle the children in its minivans between this shuttle station and the Regnart campus. The residents near the school like this idea and hope that the City will encourage Tessellations to pursue it. Tessellations’ application for a revised CUP requires that a traffic study be done. When that happens in the fall, Tessellations’ shuttle program should be considered as one very good option to ﬁxing both traffic and parking problems at the school. (The current CUP includes a provision that requires Tessellations to implement a shuttle service in the event that the City's Director of Community Development deems parking around the school to be a nuisance.) -Gill Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive) PC 6-24-2025 Item No.2 Oversized Vehicle Oridinance Written Communications From:Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Support for RV Rental Ban Policy in Cupertino Date:Sunday, June 22, 2025 8:30:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, I am writing to express my support for a policy in Cupertino similar to San Jose’s recent ban on renting RVs to unhoused residents for use as homes, as outlined in the San José Spotlight article (https://sanjosespotlight.com/san- jose-bans-homeless-people-renting-rvs/). I believe this policy is necessary to address the challenges posed by “vanlording,” where individuals rent out often inoperable RVs to unhoused people, leading to unsafe and unsanitary conditions on public streets and private properties. This practice burdens businesses, property owners, and residents while exploiting vulnerable individuals. A clear policy would enable Cupertino to maintain community safety and cleanliness, similar to San Jose’s approach. However, I strongly urge the city to pair this policy with compassionate solutions for unhoused residents. Cupertino should expand safe parking programs with adequate sanitation and support services or partner with Santa Clara County to provide housing resources. Without these alternatives, we risk displacing people without viable options. Thank you for considering my input. Sincerely, Ravi Kiran Singh Cupertino Resident From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:City Clerk Subject:2025-06-24 Planning Commission Mtg ITEM2 - Vehicle Parking Ordinance QUESTIONS Date:Sunday, June 22, 2025 4:48:50 PM Attachments:image002.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, Just for disclosure purposes, my husband and I are long-time RV owners (20 years) and have rented them before owning so I have some insight on how/what a resident RV owner might need to do on a city street, especially in front of their home or while traveling visiting other cities. Thank you for providing additional information and data regarding the RV parking situation. It is very informative and eye opening, especially having examples of how our existing laws are rendered ineffective by the actions of some RV owners. I have several questions regarding the STAFF REPORT: Q1…It’s proposed to add a definition of “oversized vehicles” in Muni Code Section 11.28.010. Q1: What would the definition of “oversized vehicle” look like? Q2…Question regarding our existing Muni Code Section 11.28.020 According to Section 11.28.020 it is unlawful to live or sleep in ANY vehicle parked on the street. Q2: Why is Section 11.28.020.A not enforced now? Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:City Clerk Subject:2025-06-24 Planning Commission Mtg ITEM2 - Vehicle Parking SITUATIONS TO CONSIDER Date:Sunday, June 22, 2025 5:14:21 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 AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Planning Commission and Staff, Just for disclosure purposes, my husband and I are long-time RV owners (20 years) and have rented them before owning so I have some insight on how/what a resident RV owner might need to do on a city street, especially in front of their home or while traveling visiting other cities. When reading these proposed options I made a list of all the large vehicles I see around our neighborhood from time to time. Ideally, the proposed changes should cover these cases with the desired effect, whatever that be. Types of vehicles around town: RVs Long vans (over 20 ft) – either a Class-B RV or a work van Long bed pickup trucks Shuttle vans, Hopper vans, Apple vans Buses Delivery trucks (FedEx, Amazon, UPS, furniture/moving vans, 18-wheelers) Boat trailers Trailers Plumber, electrician, gardeners, construction vehicles Some situations where a resident of Cupertino would need to park their RV or boat or trailer for more than 2 hours on a city street (in front or near their house): Preparing to leave early the next day – Often they connect the car they are towing behind the RV the night before and have the RV plus car parked in front of their house ready to go in the early morning. An RV is stored elsewhere and is brought from storage to the home to load up. It often takes all day to load up and prep the RV. The RV probably then stays in front overnight for an early start the next day. The RV is stored in the backyard but needs to be moved so workers can have access, room or prevent damage. This isn’t always planned. It can happen on the weekend. It can happen when workers from your neighbor’s house need you to move it. RV is rented for a family vacation – loading an empty RV can take a day. Often they wait until the next morning to leave. Family or friends who are traveling in an RV come to visit. The resident has a business and does not have room to park the vehicle. This gets dicey considering that now days developers are not providing adequate parking. Some newer developments are shortening the length of parking spaces from 20 ft to 18 ft which don’t allow some trucks or vans to be parked on-site in a parking space. REQUEST: When you look at changing the city’s vehicle parking ordinances, please keep these in mind and make sure the desired outcome is obtained for these various situations. Please make the resulting vehicle parking ordinances fit reality. When laws don’t make sense, people ignore them. Thank you. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Peggy Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:City Clerk Subject:2025-06-24 Planning Commission Mtg ITEM2 - Vehicle Parking Ordinance COMMENTS Date:Sunday, June 22, 2025 5:47:25 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM. Dear Planning Commission and Staff, I’m glad the city is revising it’s parking ordinance and addressing some of the issues the city has been encountering. 1.I agree that once the 72 hours are expired, the vehicle should move 1500 ft away for at least 72 hours. a.That said, I think there should be a way a resident can get an extension. 2.Permits…I do not support requiring residents to have to get a permit every time they need to park their RV on the street. a.The times when this is needed are not always planned and can happen when the city is closed (weekends, holidays, evenings). b.It would require more staff time and overhead which results in more taxpayer money being wasted. c.It would require more time for the resident. 3.Some provision is needed to allow friends and/or family that are traveling in an RV to visit and park on the street. 4.Some provision is needed to allow visitors in RVs to visit and shop in Cupertino. In Campbell, on Dell Avenue, near the perk ponds which is a large commercial area with lots of parking, they installed signs restricting the heights of the vehicles overnight. Maybe in troubled areas, the city could do the same? Q: What are other cities doing to solve this problem? Sincerely, Peggy Griffin From:Jean Orr To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:RV Parking Date:Sunday, June 22, 2025 8:47:09 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. Re: Planning Commission Meeting; June 24, 2025 Item 2; RV Parking Regulations Proposal: We own an RV and only park it in the road, in front of our house, when getting it packed and ready for a trip. We think that short term parking should be permitted on the public road. Keep this in mind when making any proposal for parking restrictions. Thanks you From:Mark Wright To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Oversize Vehicles opinion Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:51:44 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. Hi On the matter of oversized vehicle control in parking lots, my suggestion is to Limit parking to a specified time. E.g. 72 hours as is same for parking cars on streets. Then ticket, then tow. Mark Wright 10620 Culbertson Dr. Cupertino CA95014 From:Rhoda Fry To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:6/24/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Item #2 Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 2:03:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, Regarding 6/24/2025 Planning Commission Agenda Item #2 Please do not consider doing parking permits. It puts a lot of time and money stress on residents and extra overhead for staff. It seems that one of the issues is that code enforcement is not adequately responding to resident complaints. This is an area upon which we can improve. Another thing that I’d like you to consider is that our storm drains lead straight to the bay. Many people don’t realize this. Although I have no evidence that people have been dumping effluent into our storm drains, the more people who reside in their vehicles, the greater the possibility of it happening. Note that the City of Santa Clara storm drains go to the sewage treatment plant. I don’t know who is responsible for painting our storm drains, but having looked at a few this week when I was walking around town, it looks like they could use some sprucing up. Maybe we need a paint that doesn’t fade? Below is an image of one of the better-looking ones on my walk. Regards, Rhoda Fry From:Jean Bedord To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Cc:Chad Mosley Subject:Agenda Item #2 Oversized Vehicle Parking, Planning Commission, June 24, 2025 Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 2:41:26 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 in Written Communications ---------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Commission, I am writing to oppose the options presented in the staff report. First of all, this is not included in the city work plan or received direction of the council as a whole, thus violating the Municipal Code requiring council to approve any council member's request that exceeds two hours of staff time. Who directed "staff" and who is this unknown Deputy City Manager who wrote the report? Secondly, though this report is an improvement from the original report which suddenly appeared on the April 22, 2025, Planning Commission agenda, it proposes a punitive permit system that would be cumbersome and expensive to implement. Permits would cost approximately $50 each. The recommended option would require residents with recreational RVs to obtain a permit every 72 hours AND move their vehicle 1500 feet. Residents would be subject to the same enforcement as unsheltered RV residents. Is the city prepared to operate a permit system 24/7 so weekends and evenings are covered? City hall operates 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and there is already a staff shortage. Directors’ names are not on this report, but staff time would be required to enforce such a policy, instead of providing services to residents. Money spent on signage is better spent on improving resident services. The staff report fails to address the overall issue of the ongoing challenge for unsheltered residents. It focuses on punitive actions which impact both residents with recreational vehicles as well unhoused residents. Context is missing. It cites 200 complaints about oversized vehicles in the past year. But how many vehicles are actually involved? Perhaps as few as 10-20 vehicles? What are the demographics? How many are “working poor” who have to live close to their work? What outreach has been done to the occupants of these vehicles? Due to lack of affordable housing, “vehicle lodging” is a reality until more permanent housing is available. Shouldn't overnight parking be addressed within the broader context of unhoused residents which include (1) Tents, (2) Cars/vans and (3) RVs/Trailers? Mountain View has Safe Parking programs which differentiate between cars/vans which can be accommodated in church parking lots, and RVs in commercial areas which can provide more space and waste disposal services. Cupertino has neither. The Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Saratoga does NOT accommodate RV’s (an error in the staff report). How are other similar jurisdictions managing unhoused residents? The San Mateo City Council adopted a “compassionate approach” to enforcing its ban on people sleeping in vehicles, prioritizing outreach and services before citations. I urge you to take the compassionate approach to provide outreach and services to address the underlying issue, rather than a punitive approach which also impacts residents who have recreational vehicles, as well as their visitors who should be allowed to park (with homeowner permission) in residential areas without the hassle (and expense) of a permit system. Cupertino can do better....... Housing and Community advocate, Jean Bedord From:Venkat Ranganathan To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Input on Oversized Vehicle Parking Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 2:48:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission Members, This is Venkat Ranganathan, a long time Cupertino resident. Thank you for your continued efforts to address the growing concern around oversized vehicle parking in Cupertino. I support the direction outlined in Option 1 of the June 24 staff report, which proposes requiring a City-issued permit to park oversized vehicles on public rights-of-way, along with mandatory 1500-foot relocation every 72 hours. This strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of residents, enforcement feasibility, and community aesthetics. However, I urge the Commission to strengthen this option further through two key amendments: 1. Restrict permits to 3 per month per vehicle rather than 5. The current proposal allows oversized vehicles to legally occupy public streets for up to half the month. Reducing this to 3 permits ensures such parking remains transitional, not semi-permanent. 2. Establish designated zones for oversized vehicle parking—especially in commercial or less trafficked areas—rather than allowing dispersed parking throughout the city. Without clear zones, enforcement becomes difficult and neighborhoods may still see clustering despite the permit requirement. Additionally, while daytime and short-term exceptions (2 hours during the day, 1 hour at night) offer flexibility, these should not become loopholes for routine overnight dwellers. With the suggested improvements, Cupertino can better manage public space while respecting occasional residential use. Thank you for considering this feedback. Sincerely, Venkat Ranganathan Get Outlook for Android From:Greg Endom To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Over-sized Vehicle Parking City of Cupertino Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:08:40 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. Chair Rao: I received your email to Amy Chan, who forwarded it to me. I represent the ownership of the Marina Plaza Shopping Center, specifically with respect to its planned redevelopment of the Marina Plaza Shopping Center property into a mixed-use residential and retail project. In response to your request for commentary related to the current oversized parking of vehicles on Alves adjacent to the Marina Plaza center, I can offer you these thoughts… While the current parked vehicles and their residents have not caused any material problems or generated concerns/complaints that the center ownership is aware of, the long-term viability of this type of parking pattern is in question at this location. When the redevelopment of the center occurs, the construction activities and changes to the property during its redevelopment will not be conducive or most likely allow for this type of long-term parking. Once the redevelopment is complete, I would envision Alves being more conducive to bicycle lanes and parallel parking for the retail tenants, customers, and visitors to the residential units being planned at the site. The nature and use of Alves after the planned redevelopment will be substantially different from its current level of activity. The new mixed-use project envisions an activation and upgrade of this secondary street into a more pedestrian- friendly and neighborhood-welcoming thoroughfare. Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments. Sincerely, Marina Plaza Shopping Center /s/ Greg Endom By: Greg Endom Project Manager Greg Endom 925-550-8082 DRE# 00766333 From:Ram Sripathi To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Rv parking menace Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:31:17 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. Hello planning commission We are seeing a rampant use of rv parking behind target in Cupertino. They park in and around the xyz hotel. I’m a long time resident of Cupertino and pride our city. But allowing these rvs that don’t belong to Cupertino and the occupants don’t contribute to cupertinos welfare or well being. I’d say strongly that they are a menace and should be asked to leave and further not allow any rv parking in public spaces. It’s a menace because they slowly start dirtying the surrounding and because they don’t want to leave for fear of losing the spot , start doing things like throwing garbage, emptying water, lounging around etc. They also probably hurt the hotel xyzs look and that impacts the city revenue . If we continue to allow there maybe other spots people will park. We should further go ahead and pass an ordinance banning Rv parking. I hope the commission listens to its loyal long resident citizens and does the right thing. Thanks Ram Sripathi Cupertino resident Sent from my iPhone From:Deborah To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Oversized Vehicle Parking Ordinance Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:39:35 PM Attachments:CCHC New logo Signatures-02.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. Hello Planning Commissioners, Thank. You for reviewing the CMC regarding oversized vehicles in the City. I know that in other cities, it appears they have designated areas that these vehicles can park, but they they are highly industrialized. Out local businesses have some issues with trailer homes being parked near their entrances as it deters customers from entering or using the business. I am not sure what new rules would prevent this. Nominally near some of our hotels some have parked for the regulated amount of time (I believe it’s still 72 hours before they have to move) but you can see how this would hurt hotel business specifically, particular when they have not quite recovered from the effects of the pandemic like a lot of our small businesses. I just ask that the business community be considered when making changes to these regulations as it will effect the health of our economy and therefore revenue to the City. Thank you for your consideration., Deb Deborah L. Feng, MBA CEO O. 408 2527054 ext.101 Deb@cupertino-chamber.org www.cupertino-chamber.org From:Rinal Shah To:Santosh Rao; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley; Daniel Degu Cc:Dipesh Gupta; Manish Gupta Subject:Re: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session: Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations – June 24 Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:53:51 PM Attachments:Aloft Cupertino_Comments on Oversized Vehicle Parking.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 Members of the City Planning Commission - Please find our comments/feedback on the City of Cupertino's parking regulations for oversized vehicles. Thank you for your time and for considering our perspective. Best Regards, Rinal Rinal Shah VP of Operations Aloft Cupertino From: Daniel Degu <DanielDe@cupertino.gov> Date: June 23, 2025 at 11:59:10 PM PDT To: dgupta@shashigroup.com Subject: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session: Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations – June 24 Hi Dipesh, The Planning Commission will hold a study session on Tuesday, June 24 at 6:45pm in Cupertino Community Hall to discuss potential updates to the City’s parking regulations for oversized vehicles on public streets. During the meeting, the Commission will review and consider multiple options presented by City staff and may choose to recommend one of the proposals for City Council consideration in a future ordinance. The staff report is attached for your reference, should you wish to learn more. Public input is welcome. You may: Attend the meeting in person or via teleconference Share your feedback by emailing Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao at srao@cupertino.gov or the full commission at planningcommission@cupertino.gov. For additional details, please refer to the attached documents. Daniel Degu Economic Development Manager City Manager's Office DanielDe@cupertino.gov W:(408)777-3233/C:(669)251-1804 From: Ty Bash <tybash@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 4:53 PM To: Planningcommission@cuprtino.gov <Planningcommission@cuprtino.gov> Cc: Santosh Rao <Srao@cupertino.gov> Subject: RV ordinance 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 commission, My name is Ty Bash and I am the operations manager at Happy Days. Since we opened our doors in 2001, we at Happy Days have provided early childhood education for infants, preschoolers and kindergarteners to families in the Cupertino community. As we have recovered from Covid restrictions, the challenges of remote work and return to work are compounded by challenges of the people living in RVs in front of our school. On a daily basis one could ﬁnd an RV or two parked in front of our school, or across the street in front of the Target parking lot. Many addition RVs are parked along Alves, behind Target. Perspective parents frequently inquire about the status of the vehicles, while we can only assume that others are altogether deterred and do not come in. Fortunately, we have not had an incident with those who occupy the RVs, but the fear of the parents, children and our employees is real. While we empathize with plight of the RV residents, other resident solutions must be found. We are happy that the mayor is looking into addressing the situation and are in full support of legislation that will restrict RV parking on public streets. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From:Nicklaus Meier To:Deborah; Santosh Rao; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Re: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session: Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations – June 24 Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 5:25:51 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. Thank you, Deb, for including Aloft Cupertino in this discussion. Hi Santosh, 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 the 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 | The NEST Palo Alto Aloft Cupertino | Aloft Sunnyvale | Aloft San Jose Cupertino On Tue, Jun 24, 2025, 1:12 PM Deborah <Deb@cupertino-chamber.org> wrote: Hi Nick,I thought you and your folks might want to weigh in here by either attending the study session below and/or submitting your comments via both or either of the emails listed below. I will be submitting my comments to the planning commission email address. Deb Deborah L. Feng, MBA CEO O. 408 2527054 ext.101 Deb@cupertino-chamber.org www.cupertino-chamber.org Begin forwarded message: From: Daniel Degu <DanielDe@cupertino.gov> Subject: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session: Oversized Vehicle Parking Regulations – June 24 Date: June 23, 2025 at 11:36:39 PM PDT To: Deborah <deb@cupertino-chamber.org> Hi Deb, The Planning Commission will hold a study session on Tuesday, June 24 at 6:45pm in Cupertino Community Hall to discuss potential updates to the City’s parking regulations for oversized vehicles on public streets. During the meeting, the Commission will review and consider multiple options presented by City staff and may choose to recommend one of the proposals for City Council consideration in a future ordinance. The staff report is attached for your reference, should you wish to learn more. Public input is welcome. You may: Attend the meeting in person or via teleconference Share your feedback by emailing Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao at srao@cupertino.gov or the full commission at planningcommission@cupertino.gov. For additional details, please refer to the attached documents. Daniel Degu Economic Development Manager City Manager's Office DanielDe@cupertino.gov W:(408)777-3233/C:(669)251-1804