CC 12-05-23_Late Oral_Written CommunicationsCC 12-05-2023
Written Communications
Oral
Communications
From:Tessa Parish
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Oral communication
Date:Tuesday, December 5, 2023 4:53:49 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.
Honorable Council,
I would like to request that items that are note worthy not be put on “consent” and not place 2
topics into 1 item such as it is the item regarding 1. parking got private school 2. And
changing zoning
Those 2 items should not be in 1 consent item. The amount of trouble/nuisance that 400
parked cars will make sin Amu neighborhood is huge, I believe should have been given more
study and thought.
2. Canceling 4th of July fireworks without proper notice to the public is not sitting well with
the public. I’ve heard it from several groups I have been attending for 12 yrs. I would want to
know if there are any other options,
Best Regards,
Tessa Parish
CC 12-05-2023
Written Communications
Item No. 1
Receive presentation
regarding revenue tax
measure options
From:Rhoda Fry
To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Cc:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:How much tax revenue is City trying to raise? and Cupertino in the news . . . again
Date:Wednesday, December 6, 2023 12:48:34 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 City Manager Wu,
Can you please share with the public as to how much money the City is trying to raise?
By my calculations, an extra $5.4M is not going to get us close to where we would need to be.
I’m also worried that it was only a few years ago, that the addition of this same tax was
estimated to raise $3 to $4M.
On the brighter side, Cupertino is getting $1.1M more through the relatively new storm-drain
fee and is retaining $1M more of the garbage franchise fee than just three years ago.
Although I did bring up a concern that the garbage franchise fee looks awfully like a tax and
the California Supreme Court frowned on that practice in 2022.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
Attached is an article in today’s news:
Cupertino Weighs Four Tax Options to Fill in Apple Revenue Loss
City council faces June deadline to decide
Revenue loss tied to state’s review of Apple sales tax agreement
By Laura Mahoney / December 5, 2023 10:47PM ET / Bloomberg Law
Leaders in Apple Inc.'s hometown of Cupertino are considering a menu of four tax increases
to make up for the loss of revenue from the company’s online sales.
The Cupertino City Council voted 4-1 on Tuesday to direct its staff to ask businesses in the
city for their input on the tax ideas and report back in January, when the council will also be
considering budget cuts to help close a $15 million deficit due to the state’s actions. Next, the
council could consider narrowing the options for possible placement on the November 2024
ballot after polling residents to gauge support. The council must decide by June.
The four tax options are:
A 0.25% local transaction and use tax, which would be added to the 9.125% currently
levied in Cupertino that includes statewide sales tax and six different county or
regional special taxes. It would be levied on purchases made in Cupertino and
allocated to the city, and would raise $5.4 million annually.
An increase from 12% to 15% in the city’s transient occupancy tax on lodging, which
would raise $1.9 million per year.
A parcel tax levied either at a flat rate or several progressive rates on homes and
businesses, which would raise $3.7 million per year.
A business operations tax, or employee tax, levied at progressive rates based on the
number of employees, which would raise $4.1 million per year.
Cupertino is facing the choices because the California Department of Tax and Fee
Administration is scrutinizing whether Apple improperly designated the city as the location of
online transactions for iPhones, MacBooks, Airpods, and other products sold in California.
The city has an agreement with Apple to give 35 cents of every dollar to the company, and
has paid Apple $107.7 million since 1998.
The council has already set aside $56.5 million to repay the department for sales tax it has
received since April 2021 and expects future sales tax revenue could drop by 73%.
The city is appealing the department’s determination, but that process is expected to take
months or years and could end up in state court.
Council members, who did not name Apple during the hearing, opted to ask the business
community for input first instead of taking recommendations from its staff and a consulting
firm that analyzed options to begin polling residents on their support for the transaction and
use tax. That option, which would require a majority of voters’ approval, would keep the city’s
tax rate competitive with its neighbors’ and be spread across residents, businesses, and
visitors.
Even if the city enacts a tax increase, it will still face an annual budget shortfall of at least $10
million, said Kristina Alfaro, director of administrative services.
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Mahoney in Sacramento, Calif. at
lmahoney@bloombergindustry.com
Link to story: Cupertino Weighs Four Tax Options to Fill in Apple Revenue Loss (bloombergtax.com)
CC 12-05-2023
Written Communications
Item No. 10
Amendment to Chapter
19.76 and a Conditional
Use Permit and Parking
Exception
Cupertino City Council
12/5/23 Hearing
Tessellations Overview
●Non-profit (founded 2020)
●Serving the gifted population
●Progressive
●PK-9th -> PK-8th
Giftedness
Giftedness is asynchronous development in which
advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity
combine to create inner experiences and awareness that
are qualitatively different from the norm.
Columbus Group (1991)
Giftedness
●Different academic needs
●Different social emotional needs
○Intense
○Sensitive
○Highly empathetic
●Intrinsically motivated
●A “left-behind” population
●An at-risk population
●An important population
Community
Community
●Other-oriented (empathetic)
●Leave things in better stead
Community
Impact on Public Schools
●5% of Tessie students live in Cupertino
●K-8th: 9 students (compared to 14,000 in CUSD K-8)
●High school at capacity: 15 (compared to 9,000)
●Over half come from other private schools
●“Stealing” <.5 students from Monte Vista per year
●Different population
Transportation & Parking Efforts (Staff)
●Carpools: 19 in 7 vehicles and climbing
●Bike/walk: 12
●Relocated less-frequently-used vans
●Back lot (blacktop)
●Shuttle service expandable as needed
●Zero staff impact on neighborhood parking
●Open to future changes / suggestions
Parking/Traffic Pictures
Parking/Traffic Pictures
12/4/23: During a workshop for prospective kindergarteners!
Transportation Efforts (Students)
●Carpools: Varies - currently over 25%
●Utilize Rainbow (very light traffic)
●Vanpool starting soon
●DashPass
●7 families (and counting) within walking distance + 4 biking
●Outperforming many public schools (<80% drive)
●Always Iterating
Neighborhood Survey Results
●220 houses
●25 responses (so far)
●>80% use campus
●70% of above use it for
exercise
(kids are next highest)
Neighborhood Survey Results
What do you think about parking and traffic in the neighborhood?
I’ve always been satisfied with the parking situation.
I was annoyed when you moved in, but it’s a lot better now and I’m
satisfied with the current situation.
I’m slightly annoyed, but I understand that there will likely always be a
school here so it comes with the territory.
I’m frustrated by the current situation and would like to see more
improvements.
I wish the school would remain vacant like it was last year.
Taking Care of Our People
●Family attrition 4%
●Job Applications 1700+
Cupertino +
●Proud to be in Cupertino
●Making Cupertino Proud
Thank You
Thank You
Appendix
Slides after this point are optional.
Sign Clarity
Sign Clarity
From:Bindeeya Desai
To:City Council
Subject:comments for Dec 5 Public hearing on MCA-2023-003, U-2023-002, EXC-2023-009
Date:Tuesday, December 5, 2023 4:04:45 PM
Attachments:comments for Cupertino City Council hearing on Dec 5, 2023- Bindeeya Desai.docx
Marked up plan- Regnart school property- Bindeeya Desai.pdf
comments for Cupertino Planning Comission hearing on Nov 14, 2023- Bindeeya Desai.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To Cupertino City Council,
Please find attached file as part of my comments for the above mentioned public hearing:
1. word document with comments for Dec 5 public hearing
2. word document with past comments on Nov 14 public hearing
3. pdf marked up plan- submitted to Planning Division for the Planning Commission
hearing on Nov 14.
Thank you,
Bindeeya Desai
TO: Cupertino City Council
FROM: Bindeeya Desai
DATE: Dec 5, 2023
SUBJECT: Comments for public hearing on Dec 5 for Application No. MCA-2023-003, U-2023-002, EXC-
2023-009 in BA zone
Please refer to report made by Planning Division
Emi Staff Report for
Dec 5 council hearing.. It ignores and omits many important
details that were pointed out at the Nov 14 hearing.
I would like The City Council to consider these 5 points in bold text below.
MCA-2023-003:
Page 2 of report- BA zone has 23 properties- 9 properties are not public schools+ 14 properties are
owned by CUSD and FUHSD. As of now, only 9 out of 14 CUSD/FUHSD properties are still in public use. In
3 years(2027), with 23% loss anticipated, 14 will become only 7 in ‘public use’.
1. CUSD & FUHSD will loose HALF of their properties to private uses. This
kind of loss equates to loss of open spaces and livable neighborhoods
especially when the volume of cars operational in quiet neighborhood
streets is colossal. This is significant enough to require CEQA review on
proposed traffic implications on the neighborhoods of The City of
Cupertino, also when the guidelines of the general open space plan are
not being met.
The Planning Division assumes no responsibility for the impact of traffic on the neighborhood
by stating “CUP & EXC involves only minor physical changes to the site”. This statement is simply
not true for the neighborhood. The City does have responsibility for the neighborhood, not just
development on the site.
U-2023-002, EXC- 2023-009:
Page 7 of report- Policies supported by general plan include
“Strategy RPC-2.1.2: Public Use of School Sites to allow for the public to use [the] sites, when not in
use by schools,
Policy RPC-8.1.2: School Expansion. Encourage schools to meet their expansion needs without
reducing the size of their sports fields.
Goal RPC-8: Cooperate with school districts to share facilities and meet community needs. “
“Tessellations’ proposed hours of operations are Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00
p.m., with typical school operations, including the afterschool program, occurring between 7:30 a.m.
and 6:30 p.m. Classes begin at 8:15 a.m. and end at 3:15 p.m. and staff is expected to arrive between
7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m.”
2. Why is the public prevented from using the open spaces Yorkshire Park
and Yorkshire Playground between 4pm to 8am M-F and all times on
weekends when the school is not operational? This is what the
neighborhood shared prior to 2022 and should not be any different.
Page 7 of report-
• “Pick-up for the after-school program is proposed to occur through to 6:00 p.m.
• Student drop-off and pick-up is proposed to occur entirely on the school site
• pick-up process has seven staff assigned to monitor traffic and ensure safety.
3. The above statements are not true. Parents park on resident curbs at pick-
ups at 3.30 & 6pm and sometimes at drop-offs as well. There is no staff
present at pick-up for afterschool and there is no pick up loop for after
school. Parents have not been instructed to not park on resident curbs and
to go through the dropoff/pick up loop. We have sent several photos as
proof. This has to be addressed for the CUP and EXC. Moreover, there is a
“hazard” using the black top for vehicles- parked or moving. Besides, the
black top is a “play”ground, not for parking vehicles!!
• As of now, there is no staff monitoring pick-ups between 4- 6 pm.
• Parents still park on Yorkshire- north and west side on resident curbs at pick up times-
3.30pm and after 5pm. Agreed, it is less but I saw about 4-6 yesterday at 3.30pm when their
parking lot was mostly empty!. Parents have not been instructed to not park on resident
curbs. How will this stop if it is not even mentioned in CUP or EXC???
• The right turn into the black top is a blind turn- no staff monitoring- at one time last week
there were 5 parent cars lined on fire lane requiring reversing to allow cars to get out. On
that driveway, two vehicles cannot pass through gate at the same time. This is a hazard.
4. The pick-up loop at main parking lot must be used for after
school pick-ups and parents must not park on resident curbs if
drop off/pick-up loop is effective.
• I have noticed, at 8am, roughly 5 out of 7 staff cars parking on black top, drive and turn at
higher speeds than acceptable around schools. There are no signs in the school zone that
limit speed to 15mph, so it is assumed that the limit is 25 mph. I don’t have a speed checker
but the 2 who were driving perfectly slow were a good bench mark against the other 5 who
suddenly slammed breaks upon noticing me.
5. There must be a sign post – speed 15mph around school zone
TO: Cupertino Planning Commission
FROM: Bindeeya Desai
DATE: November 14, 2023
SUBJECT: Comments for public hearing on Nov 14 for Application No. MCA-2023-003, U-2023-002, EXC-
2023-009 in BA zone
I appreciate The Planning division’s recommendation to go forth with Tessellations parking
exception permit which is essentially based on neighborhood and community oriented values.
It is these values that make our neighborhoods and our cities livable.
They are:
1. Public use of BA zoned Regnart site
2. Preserving the open spaces, we fondly call “The Yorkshire Playground”(which is the play
field and courts) and “The Yorkshire Park” (the front lawn area)
3. Using alternate systems to avoid vehicles on site and on our streets, keeping our
neighborhood uncongested and peaceful.
However, when I look at the EXC application proposal, I see that public use and open spaces
have been compromised and alternate commute systems are far from adequate.
1a. At first, neighbors were not permitted to use the site 6am- 6pm M-F. The City helped us to
somewhat straighten that out. However, the school is in session 8am- 3.30pm M-F, but posted
signs display longer hours. This prevents public use of site longer than necessary.
1b. The site, it’s use and the recommendation for granting of EXC by Planning division have all
been based on using the role model of Regnart and its operations. Regnart had no more than 2
large local student family events where the play court area felt like a wonderful open air stage
where performances/fairs were held while neighbors could watch, participate, or still jog on the
field. Tessellations’ “numerous” events will fill all of Yorkshire Playground with vehicles, which
occur on weekdays and weekends and last up to 9pm. This prevents public from using any part
of this open space when they are allowed to.
2a. Yorkshire Playground is the heart of Regnart campus and neighborhood. It is a safe place to
be with no vehicle or road in sight and a 360 deg. view of mountains. It is used by all age groups
from our community. The basketball courts are a favorite among high school kids, ex-Regnart
students now in college, and families who come all the way from Stelling road. Yorkshire Park
with its impressive row of trees and lawn is a landmark, a photo spot in fall, and a rest stop for
one and all - birds including owls, deer, visiting duck family from Seven Springs pond, dog
walkers, pram walkers, wheelchair users, elderly couples, free play, and even picnic lunch stop
to our mail carrier who lays down a cute blanket under the shade. Planned school events must
involve the use of these open spaces by Tessellations families, not their vehicles. It is
unacceptable to consider parking even temporarily in these two open spaces without robbing
the neighborhood, the school campus itself, and the City at large of this most valuable resource.
2b. The proposed shade by the multipurpose room is consistent with the use of this open space
and must be permitted.
3a. While offsite parking and shuttle vans, car pools, etc. are excellent ways to reduce traffic
and related pollution, they have been accepted without exploring their fullest potential.
Multiple satellite parking/shuttle options for all their “numerous” event related needs have not
been considered.
3b. The multiple and unspecified number of events occurring when school is in session or not in
session can also be managed without impairing open spaces by toning down the attendance at
all events to no more than 50 persons at a time who can be shuttled from off-site parking
locations without much impact to the neighborhood environment.
3c. The potential on this site to accommodate Tessellations’ everyday parking needs have also
remained largely unexplored. Tessellations has employed car pool and off-site parking currently
but it is not very effective. Kindergarten parents (later Pre-school parents too) continue to park
on Yorkshire Drive around Yorkshire Court and beyond. Staff and base camp parents (and other
vendors/sublease in future) continue to park on Yorkshire Drive around north gate
maintenance and fire access, some parking for many hours and beyond 6pm, others in a ‘no
stopping anytime’ fire lane with multiple signs prohibiting parking. Base camp and other
vendors have to be bound by the same alternate systems of shuttle and drop-off/pick-up drive
through at existing main entrance parking lot.
Please see the attached marked up plan that highlights the above mentioned values, and
explores the site’s potential in expanding existing parking on site without abnormally impacting
open spaces and the neighborhood.
Lastly, I understand that this is not a public hearing for neighbors requesting permit zone on our
streets, but these issues are related and need to be addressed in due course. If current
commute/parking proposal is granted as is, neighbors will require the consideration of a 12
hour permit parking or a tow away zone. Permit zones are neither a practical nor an
aesthetically pleasing solution on our wonderful streets, but inevitable if the Planning division
and The City Council approves this application without giving Tessellations another chance to
provide viable and dependable transport systems for all its year round, daily, vendor, sub-lease,
and numerous event related needs.
YO
R
K
S
H
I
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
YORKSHIRE DRIVE
FO
L
K
E
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
I
V
E
(E) LOADING ZONE(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #49606
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #49606
(E)
RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #66937
(E)
RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #69066
(E)
RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #69066
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #64503
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #59252
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #49606
(E) RELOCATABLE
CLASSROOM
TYPE V - N HR
960 S.F.
DSA #49606
(E) RELOCATABLE
STUDENT VILLAGE
TYPE V - N HR
2,400 S.F.
DSA #51755
(E) BUILDING "C"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "E"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "D"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "F"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "B"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #51783
(E) BUILDING "H"
ADMIN.
TYPE V - N
2,405 S.F.
DSA #19480
DSA #55794
(E) BUILDING "G"
CLASSROOMS
TYPE V - N
3,930 S.F.
DSA #19480
(E) BUILDING "A"
GUIDED LEARNING CENTER
TYPE V - 1 HR
13,625 S.F.
DSA #51783
MULTI-USE
DSA #31225
23
TYP.
27
26
30
29
28
20
21
22
23
11 TYP.
8
6
7
15
15
3
8
6
6
17
17
15
1 5
8
DSA #51783
DSA #51783
REGNART ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=30'-0"PLAN NORTH
(E) PLAY FIELD
19 20
19 20
19
19
19
19
12 14TYP.
9 9
9
9 9
10
9
10
(E) LAWN
19
14
14
16
16
16
14
(E) TURF
(E) LAWN
14
16
1412
14
14
(E) TURF
19
TYP.
3
4
21
TYP.
(E) LAWN
(E) LAWN
EDGE OF (E) A.C.
PAVING
18
33
16
(E) TREE TO
REMAIN
(E) IRRIGATION
EQUIP.
(E) CONC.
PLANTERS
TO REMAIN
19
12'-0"
DSA #55794-
SIM. TO DET
8/A1.2
29
15
PARKING RATIO:
TOTAL PARKING SPACE: 53
TOTAL DA SPACE: 4 (REQ'D 3)
DSA #51783
DSA #51783
DSA #51783
DSA #51783
2
2
2
DSA #55794
DSA #55794
DSA #55794
DSA #51755- SIM.TO 7/A1.2
TYP.
3
(E) SHADE STRUCTURES
TYPE V - N
1,600 S.F.
DSA #112993
22
1
A1.2
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL: A BARRIER FREE ACCESS
WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT VERTICAL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" AT
1:2 MAXIMUM SLOPE, EXCEPT THAT LEVEL CHANGES DO NOT
EXCEED 1/4" VERTICAL. MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2 % .
ARCHITECT AND CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THAT ALL BARRIERS IN
THE PATH OF TRAVEL HAVE BEEN REMOVED PER SECTION
1133B.7
LEGEND:
EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN ( NO WORK TO BE DONE)
SITE PLAN NOTES:
SCOPE OF WORK
(E) VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN.
(E) D.A. TOWAWAY SIGN.
(E) D.A. PARKING SPACE.
GENERAL SHEET NOTES:
(E) PATH OF TRAVEL IS FLAT, APPROX. 0.5-1% WITHOUT
ANY CROSS SLOPE EXCEEDING 2%, OR ABRUPT CHANGES
IN LEVEL; MIN. 8'-0" CLEARANCE; (E) NON-SKID LIGHT
BROOM FINISH CONC.; WITHOUT ANY STEPS, RAMPS OR
STAIRS.
A.
(E) FIRE HYDRANT.
(E) D.A. DRINKING FOUNTAIN.
(E) TREE WELL / PLANTER.
(E) VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE.
(E) ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS
PROPERTY LINE
(N) A.C. PAVING
CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
FENCE PER DETAIL 10/A1.2, REVIEW LOCATION WITH THE DISTRICT.
D.
(E) D.A. PARKING SIGN.
(E) STUDENT TOILETS- SEE FLOOR PLANS
(E) STAFF TOILETS- SEE FLOOR PLANS
(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE.
(E) COVERED WALKWAY.
(E) A.C. PAVING TO REMAIN.
(E) CONCRETE PAVING TO REMAIN.
(E) DSA APPROVED CONCRETE CURB CUT.
(E) PLAY AREA.
CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN THE PATH OF TRAVEL WITHOUT
CREATING ANY OBSTRUCTION DURING CONSTRUCTION
PHASE.
B.
SEE STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND PLUMBING FOR
MORE INFORMATION.
C.
(E) AC PAVING.
(E) AC TOPSEAL OVER (E) AC PAVING.
(E) GAME LINES.
(N) CONC. PAVING
(N) TURF AT PLAY FIELDS.
ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE
(E) 3' x 3' D.A. PAVEMENT SYMBOL PER CBC.SEC.1129B.5.
(E) COVERED FABRIC SHADE LUNCH AREA.
(E) LANDSCAPED AREA.
(E) PLAY EQUIPMENT, FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
NOT USED.
NOT USED.
NOT USED.
REMOVE D.A. PARKING SIGN AND PAINT OVER D.A. PARKING SYMBOL.
RELOCATED VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN.
(E) STRIPING @ D.A. PARKING.
(E) CONCRETE PAVING.
(E) EQUIP. CONC. PAD W/ EQUIP. FENCE.
(E) CONTAINER TO BE MOVED BEFORE (N) A.C. PAVING WORK IS DONE,
RELOCATE PER SCHOOL DISTRICT.
(E) PARKING SPACE, STRIPING AS SHOWN.
1 HR RATED WALL
2 HR AREA SEPARATION WALL
E.PROVIDE SIGN ON OR ADJACENT TO GATES WITHIN PATH OF TRAVEL
STATING THAT "THIS GATE IS TO REMAIN LOCKED IN OPEN POSITION
DURING SCHOOL/BUSINESS HOURS OR DURING A PUBLIC FUNCTION"
32
33
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
20
19
18
21
14
17
16
15
10
11
12
13
6
7
9
8
4
5
3
2
1
(E) SIGN STATING " ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE".34
EXTERIOR PAINTING : PAINT ALL PERMANENT BUILDINGS, RELOCATABLES,
COVERED WALKWAYS AND CANOPIES, SEE SPECIFICATIONS.
F.
Cupertino, Ca 95014
FABRIC SHADE
1170 Yorkshire
10582 STERLING BLVD.
S A N JOSE , C A 9 5 0 1 4
T 4 0 8 . 4 1 0 . 3 4 4 1
www.nickbui006@gmail.com
i PARCH ARCHITECT
A1.1
bach.tran@tessellations.school
REGNART SCHOOL
(408) 891-8702
43-13
01-xxxxxx
IDENTIFICATION STAMP
DSA FILE NUMBER
DATE______________________
DIV. OF THE STATE ARCHITECT
APPL.#
AC _____ FLS _____ SS_____
TESSELLATIONS SCHOOL
Cupertino School District
caroline.gupta@
tessellations.school
STRUCTURE
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
From:Ravi Kiran Singh Sapaharam
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Concern
Date:Wednesday, December 6, 2023 10:56:13 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 City Council, City manager,
Can the list of 23 properties please be shared that had their zoning allowed use changed at the 12/5 city council
meeting. It was mentioned that 14 were public schools. What were the others. There was no discussion of this.
1. It is very disappointing that such unrelated large scoped changes are being allowed in under the Tesselations
agenda item. Can Council and staff commit to not allowing unrelated sub-items be added onto agenda items given
public and council time is restricted per agenda item. When 5 items are combined into 1 that is 1/5th the time
available to discuss the item for council and residents.
2. What is the precedent to this with other cities. Nobody asked about this last night. There must be other cities that
leased a previous public school to a private school. When this occurred did they have to change allowed use for the
property. If so, was it done for that single property or all properties with that zoning. Such a change could mean
100s of properties were changed in one shot in a large city like San Jose. Is there any precedent to this? Which other
city has made such a change besides what was done last night.
3. What are the implications of such a change to the public-private partnership. Did the allowed use change on city
hall, community hall, city hall annex, Quinlan etc. Are those properties now allowed to have broader uses beyond
what existed before yesterday. As long as a consistent use could be shown such as building a mixed use high density
project and having a city hall on one part of the project.
I request council to provide staff direction to have agenda items separated rather than combined so as to not limit
council and public discussion on these.
Alternatively please provide the time limits for discussion per agenda sub-item to counter any use of sub-items. If an
agenda has 5 sub-items please provide council members time upto allowed limits per each sub-item and the same for
public comments.
Same for the use of informational items that this not be over used or that council revert to allowing public comment
on informational items.
Your actions demonstrate your commit to stakeholder transparency and engagement. I hope you will show
commitment to residents with actions on the above and not just words.
Thank you.
Regards
Ravi Kiran Singh
PMP®, CSM®, ITIL®
669.224.0559