PC 9-9-2025 MinutesMINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
At 6:45 p.m. Chair Santosh Rao called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order and
led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre
Avenue and via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Santosh Rao, Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, and Commissioners David Fung,
Steven Scharf and Seema Lindskog. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Approval of the July 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the July 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
MOTION: Lindskog moved and Kosolcharoen seconded to approve the July 22, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao,
Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jennifer Griffin strongly opposed SB79, a housing bill by Senator Wiener, citing its frequent
amendments, vague language, and potential impact on communities like hers near Stevens Creek
Boulevard. She urged elected officials to vote "no" or abstain, arguing that constituents have been
excluded from recent housing decisions and that local control is being eroded. Griffin also pointed
to rising grassroots opposition and called for a new direction in state housing policy.
Luthern Williams, a representative from Tessellations School thanked the Planning Commission
and shared updates made in response to neighborhood feedback, including dropping plans for a
high school at the Regnart campus. The school is now seeking to raise its enrollment cap, ease
event restrictions, and expand programs. Williams emphasized their commitment to being good
neighbors through traffic management and continued collaboration with the city.
Lisa Warren raised concerns about ongoing audio issues during the meeting, noting there was no
sound during the Pledge of Allegiance and that several speakers had unclear or distorted audio.
Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2025
She also expressed appreciation that Tessellations removed their request to add a high school, but
emphasized that, based on prior assurances, they should never have proposed it in the first place.
Warren concluded by stating it's good the change was made, but it should not have been necessary.
Nori expressed strong concerns about bicycle use in Memorial Park, citing safety risks to
pedestrians, including seniors, children, and people with mobility aids. They noted that bicycles
are considered vehicles under California law and should not be ridden on sidewalks or in areas
without designated bike trails, such as Memorial Park. Nori opposed placing a bike rack near the
park’s gazebo, suggesting it be moved to a less central location to discourage unsafe cycling within
pedestrian areas and urged the city to prioritize pedestrian safety.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Subject: Consider Municipal Code Amendments to multiple chapters of the Municipal
Code to make minor edits for clarity and consistency. (Application No.: MCA-2024-004;
Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution
(Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to: Amend
Chapters 14.15 (Landscape), 14.18 (Protected Trees), 18.20 (Parcel Maps), 18.52 (Hillside
Subdivisions), 19.08 (Definitions), 19.12 (Administration), 19.16 (Designation and
Establishment of Districts), 19.28 (Single Family R1 Zones), 19.36 (Multiple-Family R3
Zones), 19.38 (Multiple-Family R4 Zones), 19.40 (Residential Hillside RHS Zones), 19.44
(Residential Single-Family Cluster R1C Zones), 19.46 (Townhomes TH Combining
District), 19.60 (General Commercial CG Zones), 19.100 (Accessory Structures), 19.102
(Glass and Lighting), 19.104 (Signs), 19.124 (Parking), and 19.132 (Sale of Alcoholic
Beverages and Gasoline); and
Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.
Assistant Community Development Director Connolly introduced Senior Planner
Sugiyama, who gave a presentation.
Commissioners asked questions which staff responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
•Jennifer Griffin
•Lisa Warren
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Commissioners continued their discussion, and asked questions which staff responded
Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2025
to.
MOTION: Rao moved and Scharf seconded to approve the staff recommendation, with
the added condition that any changes not related to state law be removed from the
current item and brought back later as a separate agenda item.
MODIFIED MOTION: Rao moved and Scharf seconded to allow for revisions to comply
with state law, along with corrections to spelling and minor readability improvements,
while still requiring that any substantive non–state law changes be brought back as a
separate agenda item. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao,
Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS –
3.Subject: An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a
summary of Phase 1 activities and an overview of what to expect during Phase 2.
Recommended Action: Receive an update on the development of the Active
Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria
Transportation Manager Stillman introduced Senior Transportation Manager Schroeder,
Petra Reyes from Alta Planning and Design, and David Wasserman from Alta Planning
and Design, who gave a presentation.
Commissioners asked questions which staff and the presenter responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
•Isham Kholsa
•Jennifer Griffin
•Emily Poon
•Lisa Warren
•Jennifer Shearin
•Herve Marcy
•Louise Saadati
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Commissioners took a recess at 8:50 PM and returned at 8:55 PM
Commissioners provided the following feedback and recommendations:
Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2025
MOTION: Lindskog moved to modify the scoring criteria as follows:
•Add a project to make the most high-injury network intersections with red lights
and stop signs safer using tools such as red light cameras, and modify the scoring
criteria as follows:
•Access Criteria: Change the school proximity score to “fifteen points if within half
mile of a school”. Add “senior housing and senior facilities such as the senior
center” to the metric definition of “Parks and Other Destinations Proximity”
•Sustainability and Connectivity Criteria: Change “Sustainability” name to
“Connectivity”. Add ten points if it is within quarter mile of a trail or low-stress
facility like class IV bike lanes, making the total max scores for this section twenty
points instead of ten points.
•Balance Criteria: Focus on impact rather than infrastructure. Subtract ten points if
a removal of a substantial number (five or more) of parking spaces used regularly
fifty one percent or more of the time. Subtract ten points of it eliminates a car lane
for ten percent or more portion of the project length.
•Fairness Criteria: Delete this criteria, as it is not an objective, measurable measure
of the positive or negative impact of a project, and it will lead to an escalating arms
race of competing public comments and create more divisiveness and animosity
within the community.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add
speeding cameras in addition to red light cameras to the first section of Lindskog’s motion.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to modify
the “Access” metric, by specifying that the senior center portion should only adhere to
pedestrian criteria.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Kosolcharoen proposed a friendly amendment to the motion
to modify the “Balance” section to change the negative ten points for removing a
substantial number of regularly used parking spaces (five or more) to negative five points,
and changing the negative ten points to negative fifteen points if it eliminates a car lane.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Kosolcharoen proposed a friendly amendment to the motion
Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2025
to do a bike count of existing usage as a baseline before starting a project on major
proposed bike infrastructure.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao made a friendly amendment to modify the “Access”
criteria to specify middle schools and high schools.
Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Scharf proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to
partner with bicycle education providers to offer routine adult and family education
classes in Cupertino.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to keep
the fairness criteria. He withdrew this friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Fung proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to move
red light runners and speeding section to the end of the motion.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add a
negative score if it caused a no right turn on red to the additional project
recommendations.
Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add
prioritize sensor driven pedestrian bicyclist detection to the additional project
recommendations.
Lindskog did not accept the friendly amendment.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Rao proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add
“Consider adaptive right-turn-on-red technology where feasible” to the additional project
recommendations.
Lindskog accepted the friendly amendment.
Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2025
AMENDED MOTION: Lindskog moved and Rao seconded to:
Modify the scoring criteria as follows:
•Access Criteria: Change the school proximity score to “Fifteen points if within one-
half mile of a school”. Add “senior housing and senior facilities such as the Senior
Center” to the metric definition of “Parks & Other Destinations Proximity.” For
pedestrians.
•Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Change “Sustainability” name to
“Connectivity.” Add ten points if it’s within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-
stress facility like Class IV bike lanes, making the total maximum score for this
section twenty points instead of ten points.
•Balance Criteria: Focus on impact rather than infrastructure. Subtract five points if
removal of a substantial number (five or more) of regularly used parking spaces
(used fifty-one percent or more of the time). Subtract fifteen points if it eliminates a
car lane for a substantial (ten percent or more) portion of the project length.
•Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is not an objective, measurable measure
of the positive or negative impact of a project and will lead to an escalating arms
race of competing public comments and create more divisiveness and animosity
within the community.
•Additional Project Recommendations: Add a project to make the most high-injury
network intersections with red lights and stop signs safer using tools such as red
light and speeding cameras. Consider adaptive right-turn-on-red technology
where necessary. Conduct a bike count of existing usage as a baseline on major
proposed bike projects. Partner with bicycle education providers (in addition to
SVBC) to offer routine adult and child education courses in Cupertino.
The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung,
Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS –
Scharf reported that he and Kosolcharoen took the Cert Class and encouraged fellow
Commissioners to take the Cert Class when it is available.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING – None
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:10 p.m. Chair Rao adjourned the Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2025
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant