[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6493786,"mediaKeyId","5448057-d89f770915840524fdab3a2725a3eddf","parentId",5448057,"title","At a glance: Planning Commission procedural votes — July 22, 2025","audioSeconds",8429,"startMs",51000,"endMs",8480000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5448057-d89f770915840524fdab3a2725a3eddf&start=51&end=8480","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5448057-d89f770915840524fdab3a2725a3eddf/thumbnail_51000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6493786/Cupertino/Santa-Clara-County/California/At-a-glance-Planning-Commission-procedural-votes-July-22-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6493786-63733da75325e023e98efec18ac36f23/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134086&Signature=LyhGhaZUexfq7ZqRc7qu2rHQxkx3ZHIgUqNtG9iCcrdOUgxmCcKaQIrwx~keGQeIUqpEHfXycNLvFmkDRsy2Qyrk3x7T4YptAHIIQ1lrdK32dOYO3Nf30JXeImdYgUfuS3zdHhj0Vm4Bv~mJ40WNAJ3BnieMA8QqEq6vdBgp3Mdw-r4Pka7SXjPNwMSBD5A8INfWi6rsATECNexLZhopdY12u8DNqUP0enD~r-QfEfIBOzLBXJRxCK8FgXSat0DrxcBM191WB1QrNYEZ2eOHMqdP6m~FVTf9hXjR-zbZtP60XbruxLxdTTm7~PDtahm5jYjeanWs5tMeM3miPF4w7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Cupertino","date","2025-07-23T04:15:19.62Z","article","The Planning Commission took two recorded procedural actions during its July 22 meeting:

1) Approval of minutes — July 8, 2025
Motion: “Motion to approve the minutes.” (mover/second not specified in the record)
Outcome: Approved by voice vote with one abstention. Commissioner Fung abstained; the remaining commissioners voted aye and the motion carried.

2) Selection of a representative to the Economic Development Committee (EDC)
Motion: Nomination and appointment of the vice chair as the Planning Commission’s representative to the EDC (nomination and second not specified in the record). The vice chair accepted the nomination.
Outcome: Approved by voice vote, unanimous.

Context: Staff said the EDC was reestablished by council ordinance; the planning commissioner appointment fills a slot created by that ordinance change and runs through the initial term noted in the staff report (the initial term noted in the report runs through Jan. 30, 2026, or until the next representative is selected). The commission had no other formal land‑use items requiring a vote during the study session and public‑comment portion of the meeting.

Ending: Both actions were procedural and recorded by the city clerk during the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cupertino Planning Commission Meeting - July 22, 2025 (Live Streamed Version)","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission approved the July 8 minutes with one abstention and unanimously appointed its vice chair as the commission’s representative to the city’s Economic Development Committee.","taxTitle","Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California","taxId",3985,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6493790,"Planning Commission reviews sample objective design standards; PlaceWorks seeks direction on level of prescription",5861,1572000,7433000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5448057-d89f770915840524fdab3a2725a3eddf&start=1572&end=7433","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5448057-d89f770915840524fdab3a2725a3eddf/thumbnail_1572000.jpg","/articles/6493790/Cupertino/Santa-Clara-County/California/Planning-Commission-reviews-sample-objective-design-standards-PlaceWorks-seeks-direction-on-level-of-prescription","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6493790-284f8b7757a8d9c3a71f85c0cf051840/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134086&Signature=SzwlrTOAY2L3YMVzjMDIOvZxE2N~Jhi5EvEHX3lwUqJYf2soVC6cBID5jNxdHE~PwKrvhZLnGcI3gFrP0rFwpkzKZAK6xwVd0RNKWlIwvSXoT6HGbpxLc9Y0vONcD4gxS3zFX6pVVGF64Ugk9t8zjWpZXmXo0lEpeNndRXcJ1UZaNOkFlpcFYXXIR02NlKKYxjpwdByPFfjMvp3yqkVYYTlXOaeJZ3cveMmpynEyte85qr5Nc-U96Hm4ZfAYaJkY-V~zegACMp2-AGnpDlZ6XCS7t7xh6UrwqtXt2VBEHiV~UuEaqeaakARfsZKInFk~hZ7cBfus3JY2SrzOUiEpbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cupertino Planning Commission on July 22 reviewed a set of sample objective design standards (ODS) drafted by PlaceWorks as part of the city’s housing‑element implementation. Greg Goodfellow, senior associate at PlaceWorks, presented draft standards intended to make design reviews for multifamily and residential mixed‑use projects more objective and ministerial.

Why it matters: California housing law increasingly requires objective, quantifiable standards for multifamily projects so local design review cannot be used subjectively to deny housing. The city is developing ODS to apply citywide to multifamily and mixed‑use residential projects, and commissioners were asked to comment on content, format and the appropriate level of prescriptiveness.

What PlaceWorks presented
Goodfellow framed ODS as measurable rules — “a standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment and is uniformly verifiable to an external benchmark,” he told the commission — and showed samples organized around five local design priorities developed with staff: sensitivity to low‑density neighbors, sensitive parking and loading, minimization of privacy impacts, tree canopy/landscaping to avoid “concrete jungle” effects, and activation of ground‑floor retail and walkability.

Sample standards covered: side and rear upper‑floor setbacks and stepbacks, rear facade modulation, daylight plane protections to limit shadowing, facade‑wrapping requirements to avoid blank walls visible to neighbors, covered and landscape‑buffered parking, enclosure and material standards for solid‑waste facilities, offset windows and balcony controls to reduce direct sightlines into adjacent homes, tree and sidewalk landscape rules, and minimum ground‑floor transparency for active retail frontages.

Commissioner and public feedback
Commissioners generally supported the project’s purpose and the stand‑alone, graphic‑driven format but asked PlaceWorks and staff for additional materials and clarifications before the commission is asked to recommend the standards for adoption:
- Examples and case studies: Commissioners repeatedly asked PlaceWorks to bring examples of how other Bay Area cities have structured ODS (stand‑alone guideline booklets, zoning‑code integration, or simple checklists) and which approaches have been effective in practice. Sunnyvale and Palo Alto were cited as reference points.
- Cross‑references and conflicts: Several commissioners asked that each ODS section include explicit references to relevant municipal‑code sections (noise, tree/landscape, parking, balconies) so reviewers and applicants can see where standards intersect with existing rules and where the ODS would defer to code or specific plans (for example, the Heart of the City specific plan).
- Waivers and density bonus: Commissioners noted that a developer pursuing a density bonus (state law) may seek waivers of standards; PlaceWorks and staff acknowledged that some waivers are likely and urged focusing ODS where they can most influence design outcomes.
- Format and usability: Commissioners asked for a compact checklist appendix that condenses standards into staff/applicant verification boxes; PlaceWorks agreed to include such a checklist in the draft.
- Scope clarifications: PlaceWorks clarified that ODS apply to multifamily residential and residential‑mixed use projects (including townhomes) and are not intended for single‑family homes, projects on hazardous or environmentally sensitive sites, or projects that would require CEQA review for significant environmental impacts.

Public comments
Members of the public made a range of comments during the ODS study session. Several praised the effort and asked that the standards preserve existing local design quality, prioritise tree canopy and larger, mature street trees over small ornamental specimens, protect dark‑sky principles and bird safety, and emphasize placemaking and seating in common open spaces. Others urged clarity on glazing and ground‑floor retail activation so storefronts are not boarded or covered after permits are issued.

Next steps
PlaceWorks and staff will prepare an administrative draft for commission review. Commissioners asked staff to gather comparative materials (recent ODS adopted by other cities, examples of checklists and code integration) and to consult informally with applicants and local architects. A future meeting will present the administrative draft and the checklist appendix; staff indicated the goal of returning with a recommendation packet for commission consideration once the draft reflects the commission’s direction.

Ending: The session closed without formal action; the commission gave PlaceWorks and staff direction to refine the draft and provide comparative examples and a checklist in the next administrative draft.","At a study session, PlaceWorks presented sample objective design standards for multifamily and mixed‑use housing. Commissioners broadly supported a standalone, graphic‑rich guidance document but asked for more comparative examples from other cities, clearer cross‑references to existing code, and a simpler checklist for implementation.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6493793,"Cupertino neighbors press Planning Commission over Tessellations’ CUP, citing traffic, parking and high‑school plans",1276,174000,1450000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5448057-d89f770915840524fdab3a2725a3eddf&start=174&end=1450","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5448057-d89f770915840524fdab3a2725a3eddf/thumbnail_174000.jpg","/articles/6493793/Cupertino/Santa-Clara-County/California/Cupertino-neighbors-press-Planning-Commission-over-Tessellations-CUP-citing-traffic-parking-and-highschool-plans","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6493793-58146c3d4f0825842306887e216ac47f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771134086&Signature=TMg9lRc~iY~MqQuvBvs7bqPZUnC8W3PDzm0Cfel78tnaf6AwxUTd2Z27YXn264NGJsJke9~VkkBHjcKedNI0BV5YpahyYQCP697V-a7AgjRtYerlhAfl8P0G7~zylek1SrDYAS-Xq6UqTNDGGl9ntaNcphkCuf-FzafzZwZecuKIWODd~G7qLNr6TJE2ki74QFBRsdnvbpYKHaG-0TcKMQJk5n~Nna259nfUVRAXSBapd9DYE1H0iH6kFLzWB5HNY30XdAEyNWOSFMCqNmn-c1ZEvbos4MqJfDkZNDWCDvT4tKO85cjSyvAffadOM2cKWC1cBo6qZ1twpGk2WAoFKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Neighbors of the former Regnard Elementary campus told the City of Cupertino Planning Commission on July 22 that Tessellations, a private school now leasing the site, is generating traffic, parking and safety problems they say exceed the limits the city set when it approved the school’s conditional use permit (CUP) in December 2023.

At the start of the public‑comment period, Vic Menon, a Cupertino resident, said the neighborhood represents “about 30 neighbors living in a quarter mile radius of Regnard campus” and asked the commission to block any revision that would expand Tessellations’ enrollment cap. “We understand that the school may soon request permission to revise its CUP by expanding its enrollment cap by over 40% from 300 to 425,” Menon said.

The neighbors told commissioners they are worried first about traffic congestion during drop‑off and pick‑up, then about on‑street parking, and finally about the school’s plan to keep or expand high‑school grades at the elementary site. “Tessellations generates a disproportionate amount of traffic because the vast majority of its students come from out of the area,” Bindia Desai said, describing queuing that can extend along Yorkshire Drive and up to the Rainbow/Yorkshire intersection. Residents said traffic sometimes blocks driveways and forces drivers into the oncoming lane.

Why it matters: neighbors said the CUP’s conditions — including an enrollment cap of 300 and a municipal‑code parking expectation — were intended to preserve neighborhood safety and livability. They said Tessellations’ current operations and any larger expansion would worsen congestion, increase safety risks for children biking to local schools and shift event parking into residential streets.

What residents told the commission
- Enrollment and caps: Speakers said Tessellations opened in August 2023 and the CUP granted in December 2023 set a 300‑student cap. Neighbors reported enrollment growth from roughly 141 students early on to roughly 266–268 this school year; one speaker cited a projected enrollment near 277. They asked the city to require the school to abide by the CUP cap of 300.
- Parking requirements and exceptions: Residents said the CUP called for 148 parking spaces on site under the city’s parking rules, but the campus footprint provides far fewer. The school negotiated an exception that allows up to 81 parking spaces at New Life Church, paired with a shuttle; neighbors said many staff and visitors instead park in surrounding residential streets. Bonnie Libby, a former Cupertino elementary teacher, said the school has about 20 parking spaces on the blacktop and that staff and parents increasingly park in the neighborhood.
- Pick‑up/drop‑off safety and enforcement: Speakers described cars queuing on neighborhood streets, drivers making illegal U‑turns and use of a fire‑lane blacktop entrance for informal drop‑offs. Ravi Kumar said a young child biking to Kennedy Middle School was struck at the Yorkshire/Rainbow corner, an incident neighbors connected to the congestion.
- High school grades and promises to move: Neighbors noted language in Tessellations’ CUP application that said the school would add a ninth grade in August 2024 with the intention to move high‑school grades to another site after the first year. Multiple speakers said the school did not move ninth grade as promised and that the school’s proposed revision would keep and expand high‑school grades (10–12) on the Regnard site — a change residents oppose because it would further increase traffic and parking impacts.
- Events and enforcement: Neighbors said Tessellations used the campus blacktop for event parking in 2024 but that in 2025 many event cars parked on Yorkshire Drive. The CUP allows up to 100 event cars on the campus blacktop for several large events per year, but neighbors said the city should enforce that limit.

Staff and commission responses
Planning staff told the commission there is no timeline yet for any formal amendment to the CUP. Staff also confirmed that proposed changes to a CUP in this case would have to come to the Planning Commission rather than be approved administratively. Staff advised neighbors that alleged violations of CUP conditions must be reported to the city (for example, via the city’s 311 system) so code enforcement can prioritize inspections and maintain a record.

Neighbors’ requests and next steps
Speakers asked the Planning Commission to a) insist Tessellations limit enrollment to the existing 300‑student cap, b) require the school to honor its earlier pledge to relocate ninth grade offsite, and c) ensure event parking and daily parking remain within the campus footprint or the permitted shuttle arrangement. Several residents urged stronger, active enforcement — for example, a zero‑tolerance policy enforced by regular patrols — and said the city should monitor compliance with the CUP and consider requiring additional on‑site parking or other mitigations before allowing any expansion.

What the meeting record shows
The public‑comment period recorded multiple, detailed accounts from area residents about traffic, parking and safety. Commission members asked staff for clarifications; staff said that any change to the CUP would return to the Planning Commission for review and that the city’s ability to act on violations depends on code‑enforcement capacity and complaints filed by residents.

Ending note: The Planning Commission did not take formal action on Tessellations at the July 22 meeting. Residents were told that any formal amendment to the CUP would come back to the commission for public hearing when staff deems the application ready.","Residents near the former Regnard Elementary urged the Planning Commission to require Tessellations to keep enrollment at 300, to move promised high‑school grades offsite and to enforce parking and event limits in the conditional use permit issued in December 2023.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

At a glance: Planning Commission procedural votes — July 22, 2025

Planning Commission reviews sample objective design standards; PlaceWorks seeks direction on level of prescription

Cupertino neighbors press Planning Commission over Tessellations’ CUP, citing traffic, parking and high‑school plans