PC 4-22-2025 AMENDED Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference
Tuesday, April 22, 2025
6:45 PM
Amended
Amended on April 18, 2025 at 1:20 PM to include updated Staff Report and Attachment 1
for item 3.
IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
OPTIONS TO OBSERVE: 'Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do
so in one of the following ways:
1)Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue.
2)Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV.
3)Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and
www.Cupertino.org/webcast
OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to
address the Planning Commission may do so in the following ways :
1)Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall:
a.During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the
agenda, and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment
period for each agendized item.
b.Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card . While completion of Speaker
Cards is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments , it is
helpful for the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon .
c.Speakers must wait to be called , then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into
the microphone when recognized by the Chair.
d.Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Chair may reduce the
speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A
speaker representing a group of 2 to 5 or more people who are present may have up to 2
minutes per group member, up to 10 minutes maximum .
e.Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect
any personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a
Page 1
1
Planning Commission Agenda April 22, 2025
document (e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may
do so in one of the following ways:
At the overhead projector at the podium or
E-mail the document to planning@cupertino .gov by 3:00 p.m. and staff will
advance the slides/share the documents during your oral comment.
2)E-mail comments to the Planning Commission at planningcommission@cupertino .org as
follows:
a.E-mail comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting in order to
be forwarded to the commissioners before the meeting.
b.Emailed comments received following agenda publication but prior to, or during, the
meeting, will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting.
3)Teleconference in one of the following ways:
a.Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register
in advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting :
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_MnumZxSMQjSuGB_3uEO7kQ
Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about
joining the webinar.
Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once
recognized, speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully :
One can directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in
their internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date
browser, such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari
7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer .
b.By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join
the meeting as follows:
i.Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 940 0665 0728
ii.To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6
iii.Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone
number.
c.Via an H.323/SIP room system:
i.H.323 Information:
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 940 0665 0728
ii.SIP: 94006650728@zoomcrc.com
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Page 2
2
Planning Commission Agenda April 22, 2025
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Approval of the March 11, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the March 11, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
1- Draft Minutes
2.Subject: Approval of the March 25, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the March 25, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
1- Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the
public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of
copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing
to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the
Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to planning@cupertino .org. Plans
will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.
3.Subject: Update to Vehicle Parking Restrictions on Public Roadways, and Restrictions
on Oversized Vehicle Parking in Residential Districts and Customer-Facing Retail
Establishments
Recommended Action: Recommend to the City Council to conduct first reading of
Ordinance No. 25-____: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
amending Section 11.24.130, Section 11.24.200, Section 11.28.010, and Section 11.28.020
to the Municipal Code regarding prohibiting parking of vehicles for more than
seventy-two (72) hours, removal of vehicles from street, and parking of oversized
vehicles restricted.”
Page 3
3
Planning Commission Agenda April 22, 2025
Staff Report
1 – Ordinance No. 25-___
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
4.Subject: Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural
& Site Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling
count and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to
Building 1. (Application No(s): M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related
California (Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the proposed draft
resolutions to:
1.Adopt the First Addendum to an EIR and approve the Development Permit
Amendment (M-2024-003); and
2.Approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003).
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution for M-2024-003
2 - Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-003
3 - Letter from J. Abrams Law to Cupertino City Staff dated June 18, 2024
4 - Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1
5 - Project Plans
6 - Public Comments
7 - Applicant Parking Exhibit
5.Subject: Review of the new projects proposed in the Fiscal Year 2025 - 2026 Capital
Improvement Program for consistency with the General Plan.
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution finding that the new project proposed in
the Fiscal Year 2025 - 2026 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General
Plan.
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution
2 - FY 2025-26 CIP General Plan Conformance-Relevant Codes
3 - FY 2025-26 CIP Project Narratives
4 - FY 2025-26 CIP Matrix of General Plan Consistency
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for staff to provide any updates on matters pertinent to the
Commission and for Commissioners to report on any Commission related activities they have taken part
in since the prior regularly scheduled meeting.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
Page 4
4
Planning Commission Agenda April 22, 2025
This portion of the meeting is reserved for the Chair or any two Commissioners to propose a future
agenda item within the jurisdiction of the Commission. A proposal to add a future agenda item shall be
brief and without discussion by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an
action taken by the Planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed
to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said
appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this
meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should
call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and
writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate
alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located
at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 during normal business hours and in
Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site .
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100, written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do
not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not
wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made
publicly available on the City website.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda,
contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
Page 5
5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13868 Agenda Date: 4/22/2025
Agenda #: 1.
Subject:Approval of the March 11, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Approve the March 11, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/17/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™6
Planning Commission Draft Minutes March 11, 2025
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 11, 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 and
Steven Scharf. Absent: Commissioner Seema Lindskog.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approval of the February 25, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve February 25, 2025 Planning Commission
Minutes
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed
the public comment period.
MOTION: Scharf moved and Rao seconded to approve the February 25,
2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen,
Fung, Scharf. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Lindskog.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Diana Ferris spoke about the parking issues at Westport Assisted Living, and the lack of
communication regarding the postponed parking garage removal under AB 2097.
Commissioner Scharf asked when the item was going to come to the Planning Commission.
Planning Manager Ghosh stated that it was not scheduled yet to come to the Planning
Commission, but it will be heard soon.
Jennifer Griffin talked about her frustration around establishing objective standards in lieu
of subjective design standards and the delays in the completion of the Westport
development, and expressed her desire to re-adopt LOS standards for automobile traffic.
7
Planning Commission Draft Minutes March 11, 2025
Rhoda Fry discussed parking at the former Oaks Shopping Center, acquisition of an
apartment complex (McClellan Terrace) by the Foothill-De Anza Community College
District to allow affordable units to support their teachers and students, and questioned
whether the City can get some RHNA credit for doing so and whether the existing residents
were notified about this transaction.
Lisa thanked Diana (a previous speaker) for her insights, criticized the trend of replacing
retail spaces with housing, urging for community discussions to address these concerns and
maintain a balance between housing and local business opportunities.
CONSENT CALENDAR- None
PUBLIC HEARINGS –
2. Subject: Hillside Exception to consider the construction of a new single-family residence
on a vacant hillside property with cumulative disturbance exceeding 500 square feet on
slopes greater than or equal to 30%. (Application No(s).: EXC-2023-001; Applicant(s):
Zhaoguang Lei and Weiju Zhang; Location: 22346 Regnart Road; APN(s): 366 40 005)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the proposed draft
resolution to:
1. Find the project exempt from CEQA; and
2. Approve the Hillside Exception (EXC-2023-001) (Attachment 1)
Planning Manager Ghosh introduced Associate Planner Sugiyama who introduced the
item.
Commissioners disclosed ex parte communications prior to deliberation on this matter.
Associate Planner Sugiyama gave a presentation.
Commissioners asked questions, which staff responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
• Jennifer Griffin
Chair Rao closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fung moved to adopt the proposal, Vice Chair Kosolcharoen seconded.
Chair Rao opened the floor for Commissioner discussion.
Commissioners made comments and asked clarifying questions.
Staff answered questions.
8
Planning Commission Draft Minutes March 11, 2025
MOTION: Fung moved and Kosolcharoen seconded to adopt the proposed draft
resolution.
The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung. Noes: Scharf.
Abstain: None. Absent: Lindskog.
3. Subject: Use Permit Modification, Architectural and Site Approval, and
Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 275-crypt garden
Mausoleum and removal and replacement of 5 development trees.
(Application No.: M-2024-002, ASA-2024-002, & TR-2024-023; Applicant:
Gates of Heaven Cemetery; Location: 22557 Cristo Rey Drive; APN: 342-63-
002)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the proposed
draft resolutions (Attachment 1 -3) to:
1. Find the project exempt from CEQA and approve the Use Permit
Modification (M-2024-002);
2. Approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-002);
3. Approve the Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-023).
Commissioners disclosed ex parte communications prior to deliberation on this matter.
Planning Manager Ghosh introduced the item and Senior Planner Martire
gave a presentation.
Commissioners made comments and asked clarifying questions.
Staff answered questions.
Chair Rao opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
• Jennifer Griffin.
• Lisa.
Chair Rao closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Rao moved and Fung seconded to adopt the proposed draft
resolutions.
The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung,
Scharf. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Lindskog.
OLD BUSINESS – None
9
Planning Commission Draft Minutes March 11, 2025
NEW BUSINESS – None
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Planning Manager Ghosh stated that there may be a training for the Commissioners at the
next meeting. It would be a special meeting that would be held on the regular Planning
Commission meeting date, (March 25th), but scheduled to begin at 6 PM, with more
information to come.
Chair Rao asked if there were any Commissioner reports.
No Commissioners had reports.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
Chair Rao asked about the Westport item.
Planning Manager Ghosh stated they would notify the Commission when the Westport
item was ready to be agendized.
Commissioner Scharf suggested a future agenda item related to permit parking to offset
parking impacts because of reductions in parking pursuant to AB2097.
Planning Manager Ghosh stated that projects that involve control of the right of way,
including permit parking, is in the under the purview of Public Works and the City Council.
There was no second to Commissioner Scharf’s suggested future agenda item. This was not
added to the Future Agenda items list.
Commissioner Scharf asked about the sub committees
Chair Rao stated that they would need to prioritize the items on the Future Agenda items
list, and stated there was a full agenda with Westport and training, so they have a backlog to
address before they can address this item.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:09 p.m., Chair Rao adjourned the Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
10
Planning Commission Draft Minutes March 11, 2025
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
11
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13902 Agenda Date: 4/22/2025
Agenda #: 2.
Subject:Approval of the March 25, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Approve the March 25, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/17/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™12
Planning Commission Draft Minutes March 25, 2025
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 25, 2025
At 6:45 p.m. Chair Santosh Rao called the Special 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,
Seema Lindskog, and Steven Scharf.
PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING
1. Subject: Planning Commission Training
Recommended Action: Conduct Planning Commission Training
Assistant Director of Community Development Connolly introduced the
speakers: David Early, one of the founders of Placeworks, and Barbara
Kautz with Goldfarb & Lipman.
The speakers gave a presentation and provided training.
Commissioners asked questions and made comments on the presentation,
which staff and the presenters responded to.
Commissioners continued asking questions and making comments on the
presentation, which staff and presenters responded to.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Pamela Hershey, Bill Hershey, Stuart Chessen, Peggy Griffin, and Yoon Choi spoke on
behalf of the North Portal neighborhood. The presentation covered the Petition for
Preserving the Sound Wall on Auburn Dr. It included the statistics of the population that
participated in the petition, background on the Sound Wall and the impact of Wolfe Road
Housing and the Rise on Cupertino and their neighborhood. It was emphasized that though
their group was not opposed to the projects, they were concerned with traffic and safety,
existing alternative connectivity options, parking and overflow issues, preserving
neighborhood character, security and privacy, and preserving the covenant designed to
mitigate noise and traffic impacts. They requested the city reject any proposal to open the
sound wall, to seek alternative solutions, and for the city to provide documentation of the
covenant for preserving the sound wall. 13
Planning Commission Draft Minutes March 25, 2025
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:55 p.m., Chair Rao adjourned the Special Planning Commission Meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
14
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13915 Agenda Date: 4/22/2025
Agenda #: 3.
Subject: Update to Vehicle Parking Restrictions on Public Roadways, and Restrictions on Oversized
Vehicle Parking in Residential Districts and Customer-Facing Retail Establishments
Recommend to the City Council to conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 25-____: “An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 11.24.130, Section 11.24.200, Section
11.28.010, and Section 11.28.020 to the Municipal Code regarding prohibiting parking of vehicles for
more than seventy-two (72) hours, removal of vehicles from street, and parking of oversized vehicles
restricted.”
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/18/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™15
01276.0001/1066566.5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: April 22, 2025
Subject
Update to Vehicle Parking Restrictions on Public Roadways, and Restrictions on
Oversized Vehicle Parking in Residential Districts and Customer-Facing Retail
Establishments
Recommended Action
Recommend to the City Council to conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 25-____: “An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 11.24.130,
Section 11.24.200, Section 11.28.010, and Section 11.28.020 to the Municipal Code
regarding prohibiting parking of vehicles for more than seventy-two (72) hours, removal
of vehicles from street, and parking of oversized vehicles restricted.”
Executive Summary
Proposed 72 Hour Parking Restriction Code Amendment:
The most significant elements of the newly proposed code amendments are summarized
as follows:
• Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location for
seventy-two (72) consecutive hours or more must be moved at least one
thousand five hundred (1,500) feet (approximately three-tenths (3/10) 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. Staff recommends the distance of one
thousand five hundred (1,500) feet because this distance should ensure that
vehicles parked on longer City blocks within the City are not permitted to simply
move to a different location on the same City block, but will be required to move
to a different City block.
Proposed Ban on Large Vehicle Parking in Residential Districts and Retail Areas of
the City of Cupertino:
The most significant elements of the newly proposed code addition are summarized as
follows:
• Oversized Vehicles will be defined as any motorized vehicle or combination of
motorized vehicle(s) and/or non-motorized vehicle(s), including any attached
16
01276.0001/1066566.5
trailers, vehicle or loads thereon, which exceed 22 feet in length, and/or 6 feet in
width and 7 feet in height.
• Oversized Vehicles will generally be restricted from parking on any public street
within 100 feet of any residential districts of the City.
• Oversized Vehicles will generally be restricted from parking on any public street
within 100 feet of a customer-facing retail establishment (as defined in the
proposed new ordinance at Section 11.28.010, including establishments primarily
serving walk-in customers such as stores, restaurants, or other similar
businesses).
Background
The Mayor has requested updates to the City’s parking requirements to improve the
seventy-two (72) hour parking limit and prevent oversized vehicles as defined in the
ordinance from parking within 100 feet of residential districts or customer-facing retail
establishments. Routine long-term parking or storage of oversized vehicles on City
streets limits effective ingress and egress for emergency and essential service vehicles,
including street sweeping vehicles, as well as the general public. Pursuant to California
Vehicle Code Section 22507, a city is authorized to “prohibit or restrict the stopping,
parking, or standing of vehicles…on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof,
during all or certain hours of the day.” This provision allows cities to regulate the
parking of vehicles, including oversized vehicles, on some or all city streets.
Reasons for Recommendation
Restricting the parking of oversized vehicles on public roadways will enhance roadway
safety for motorists, bicyclists, and other vehicles by removing obstructions that impede
the normal flow of traffic. The routine parking and/or storage of oversized vehicles on
city streets limits effective ingress and egress for emergency and essential service
vehicles, including street sweeping vehicles. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section
22507, a city is authorized to “prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of
vehicles…on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours
of the day.” This provision allows cities to regulate the parking of oversized vehicles,
including recreational vehicles, on some or all city streets.
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, West Valley Division, and City Code
Enforcement Officers are currently and will be responsible for determining violations of
the code and enforcing this ordinance amendment.
Other Available Options
Revise the ordinance such that it only updates the seventy-two (72) parking restriction to
include the requirements that the vehicles be moved at least 1,500 feet and do not return
to the same location for at least twenty-four (24) hours, while eliminating the additional
prohibition on oversized vehicles parking in residential districts and customer-facing
retail establishments within City limits.
17
01276.0001/1066566.5
Based on the findings outlined above, staff recommends the Planning Commission to:
1. Find that ordinance is exempt from and not subject to review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because, without limitation, it is
not a “project” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) and/or
15378(b)(5) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15601(b)(3), each as a separate and independent basis for CEQA
compliance.
2. Recommend to the City Council to introduce the attached ordinance amending
Section 11.24.130, amending Section 11.24.200, and adding Section 11.24.250 of
the Municipal Code to the City of Cupertino Municipal Code.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Vrunda Shah, Deputy City Attorney
Reviewed by: Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Ordinance No. 25-___
18
01351.0114/1070480.1
ORDINANCE NO. 2025- _____
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING
TITLE 11, VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO’S MUNICIPAL
CODE TO AMEND SECTION 11.24.130 (PROHIBITED FOR MORE THAN SEVENTY-
TWO HOURS), AMEND SECTION 11.24.200 (REMOVAL OF VEHICLES FROM
STREET), AND AMEND SECTIONS 11.28.010 AND 11.28.020 (PARKING OF
OVERSIZED VEHICLES RESTRICTED)
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOW:
Municipal Code Changes. The City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code is amended as provided
herein (new text in underline and deleted text in strikethrough).
Section 1. Recitals.
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the above recitals are true and correct
and are incorporated herein.
Section 2. Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 11.24.130 of the City of Cupertino’s Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 11.24.130 Prohibited for More than Seventy-Two Hours.
A. No person who owns or has in his their 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 (72) hours. This prohibition shall apply to all vehicles parked or left standing within
Cupertino city limits unless explicitly exempt from this parking restriction by this Section or
another section of this code.
B. 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 five hundred (1,500) feet
(approximately three-tenths (3/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the
same location or parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure.
C. Any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in violation of this seventy-two (72) hour
parking limit may be issued a citation or removed from the street in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 22651, as may be amended or renumbered from time to time.”
Section 3. Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 11.24.250 of the City of Cupertino’s Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Sec. 11.24.200 Removal of Vehicles from Street.
Any regularly employed and salaried employee who is engaged in the direction of traffic or
enforcement of parking regulations when designated by the sheriff may issue a citation or remove
19
01351.0114/1070480.1
a vehicle from a street, except a freeway, in the manner and subject to the requirements of Vehicle
Code of the state Sections 22650 through 22856 under the following circumstances:
A. When any vehicle is illegally parked so as to block the entrance to a private driveway and it is
impractical to move such vehicle from in front of the driveway to another point on the street;
B. When any vehicle is illegally parked so as to prevent access by firefighting equipment to a fire
hydrant and it is impracticable to move such vehicle from in front of the fire hydrant to another
point on the street;
C. When a vehicle is parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for seventy-two
(72) or more consecutive hours, and it has not been moved at least one thousand five hundred
1,500) feet from that location or has returned within twenty-four (24) hours of being moved;
D. When a vehicle is parked or left standing upon a street where the use of such street or a portion
thereof is necessary for the cleaning, repair or construction of the street, or for the installation of
underground utilities, or where the use of the street or any portion thereof is authorized for a
purpose other than the normal flow of traffic, or where the use of the street or any portion thereof
is necessary for the movement of equipment, articles or structures of unusual size, and the parking
of such vehicle would prohibit or interfere with such use or movement; provided, that signs giving
notice that such vehicle may be removed are erected or placed at least twenty-four hours prior to
removal;
E. When a vehicle is parked or left standing on a highway so as to obstruct the normal movement
of traffic;
F. When any vehicle is found illegally parked and there are no license plates or other evidence of
registration displayed, the vehicle may be impounded until the owner or person in control of the
vehicle furnishes evidence of his or her identity and an address within California at which he or
she can be located;
G. Whenever any vehicle is parked or left standing where parking is prohibited by ordinance and
signs are posted giving notice of authorization for removal.;
H. When any Oversized Vehicle is parked or left standing on a public street within one hundred
(100) feet of the property line of a residential district, including multi-family residential or mixed-
use properties; and
I. When any Oversized Vehicle is parked or left standing on a public street within one hundred
(100) feet of the property line of customer-facing retail establishment, including establishments
primarily serving walk-in customers such as stores, restaurants, or other similar businesses.
Section 4. Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 11.28.010 of the City of Cupertino’s Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
“Sec. 11.28.010 Definitions
20
01351.0114/1070480.1
A. “Camp car” means a vehicle with or without motive power which is designed for human
habitation and which contains plumbing, heating or electrical equipment..
B. “Commercial vehicle” means any vehicle or part thereof required to be registered under the
State of California Vehicle Code, which is used or maintained for the transportation of persons
for hire, compensation, or profit, or designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation
of property, except passenger vehicles and house cars.
C. “Customer-facing retail establishment” means an establishment generally open to the public
during typical business hours and predominantly engaged in providing retail sale, rental, service,
processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use, including but
not limited to eating and drinking services, hotels, theaters, fitness gyms, commercial recreation,
commercial nurseries, automobile showrooms, day care centers, retail financial services, other
commercial uses, services, or activities determined by the Director of Public Works to be
accessible to the general public, generate walk in pedestrian clientele, and contribute to a high
level of pedestrian activity.
D. “Mobile home” means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed or used as permanent
housing, designed for human habitation, for carrying persons and property on its own structure
and for being drawn by a motor vehicle, and shall include a trailer coach.
E. “Oversized vehicle” shall mean any motorized vehicle as defined in California Vehicle Code
section 670 or a combination of motorized vehicle(s) and/or non-motorized vehicle(s), including
any attached trailers, vehicle or loads thereon, which exceeds 22 feet in length, and/or 6 feet in
width and 7 feet in height. To determine the height, width or length of a vehicle defined in this
Section, any extension to the vehicle caused by mirrors, air conditioners, or similar attachments
allowed by Section 35109, 35110 or 35111 of the California Vehicle Code, as the same may be
amended from time to time, shall not be included. Oversized Vehicle shall include any camp
trailer, camper, fifth wheel travel trailer, house car, mobile home, trailer coach, as defined in
California Vehicle Code Sections 242, 243, 324, 362, 396, 635, or successor statutes, or any
recreational vehicle, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 18010 or successor
statute.
F. “Park” means to stand or leave standing any vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than
temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in the loading or unloading of
passengers or materials.
G. “Public streets” means all streets, lanes, places, avenues and portions thereof, including
extensions in length and width, which have been dedicated by the owners thereof to public use,
acquired for public use, or in which a public easement exists.
H. “Truck trailer” means a commercial vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by a
truck.
I. “Vehicle” means any boat, bus, trailer, motor home, van, camper (whether or not attached to a
pickup or other vehicle), camp trailer, mobile home, motorcycle, automobile, truck, pickup,
airplane, haul trailer, truck tractor, truck trailer, utility trailer, or parts thereof, or any device by
21
01351.0114/1070480.1
which any person or property may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a public street, excepting
a device moved exclusively by human power.”
Section 5. Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 11.28.020 of the City of Cupertino’s Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
“Section 11.28.020 Vehicle Parking Regulations.
A. Living or Sleeping Quarters. No vehicle shall be used for living or sleeping quarters on any
public street.
B. Mobile Homes. Mobile homes, excluding travel trailers, are not permitted to be parked on
public streets within the residential zones of the City.
C. Unmounted Campers. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, keep or maintain, or permit
to be placed, kept or maintained, any unmounted camper on any public street.
D. Oversized Vehicle Parking. No person shall stop, stand, park or leave standing any oversized
vehicle on any public street within (a) 100 feet from the property line of a residential district ,
and (b) within 100 feet from the property line of a customer-facing retail establishment,
including establishments primarily serving walk-in customers such as stores, restaurants, or other
similar businesses.
E. Loading and Unloading and Utility Vehicles. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to
active loading or unloading of any vehicle, or to any public service or utility company vehicle
while in the performance of service or maintenance work.
F. Construction Trailers. Trailers may be used for temporary offices on construction projects. A
permit must be obtained from the City Building Department after satisfactory information has
been given that the use is in compliance with the conditions of this chapter.”
Section 6. CEQA.
The City Council determines that this ordinance is exempt from and not subject to review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because, without limitation, it is not a
“project” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) and/or 15378(b)(5) as it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on
the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15601(b)(3), each as a separate and independent
basis for CEQA compliance.
Section 7. Conflicting Provisions.
If provisions of this Ordinance are in conflict with each other, other provisions of the City
Council's Code, regulations or policies, any other resolution or ordinance of the City Council, or
any state law or regulation, the more restrictive provisions shall apply.
22
01351.0114/1070480.1
Section 8. Severability.
If any provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or sections of this
ordinance, or the application of same to any person or set of circumstances, is for any reason
held to be unconstitutional, void or invalid, the invalidity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance shall not be affected, it being the intent of the City Council in adopting this Ordinance
that no portions, provisions or regulations contained herein shall become inoperative, or fail by
reason of the unconstitutionality of any other provision hereof, and all provisions of this
Ordinance are declared to be severable for that purpose.
Section 9. Publication and Posting.
City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance, and shall cause the same to be
posted and codified in the manner required by Government Code section 36934.
Section 10. Effective Date.
Upon adoption, this Ordinance shall become effective and in full force at 12:01 a.m. on
the thirty-first day after its passage.
Introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on
____________ ___, 2025.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_______________________
Liang-Fan Chao, Mayor
ATTEST:
23
01351.0114/1070480.1
______________________________
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNSEL FOR CITY OF CUPERTINO
______________________________
Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
24
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13909 Agenda Date: 4/22/2025
Agenda #: 4.
Subject:Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site
Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count and ground
floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building 1. (Application No(s): M-2024-
003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California (Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek
Boulevard; APN #326-27-048)
That the Planning Commission adopt the proposed draft resolutions to:
1.Adopt the First Addendum to an EIR and approve the Development Permit Amendment (M-
2024-003); and
2.Approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003).
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/17/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™25
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: April 22, 2025
SUBJECT
Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site
Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count
and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building 1.
(Application No(s): M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California
(Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048)
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
That the Planning Commission adopt the proposed draft resolutions (Attachment 1 & 2)
to:
1. Adopt the First Addendum to an EIR and approve the Development Permit
Amendment (M-2024-003); and
2. Approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003).
DISCUSSION
Project Data:
1 The net acreage is a result of the subtraction of an existing Public Roadway Easement along the
property’s Mary Avenue frontage.
General Plan Land Use
Designation
Commercial/Residential with a maximum
residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre
Special Planning Area Heart of the City Specific Plan (West Stevens Creek
subarea)
Zoning Designation P(CG, Res) (Planned Development zoning with
General Commercial and Residential uses)
Net/gross lot area 7.9 acres/8.1 acres 1
Approved Project Current Proposal
Units within Building 1 123 136
Total number of units within
the Westport Development 259 272
26
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 2
Background:
Site and Location Description
Prior to the commencement of Westport’s development, the project site was known as
the Oaks Shopping Center, which was a regional, multi-tenant outdoor shopping facility
built in the 1970s that included restaurants and a movie theater. The site is located in the
Heart of the City Specific Plan Special Area within the Oaks Gateway of the West Stevens
Creek subarea.
The approximately 8.1
gross-acre site is bounded
by Stevens Creek
Boulevard to the south,
Mary Avenue to the east
and north, and Highway
85 to the west. The
surrounding uses are the
Glenbrook Apartments to
the north, De Anza
College to the south
(across Stevens Creek
Boulevard), and the
Cupertino Senior Center
to the east (See Figure 1).
Approved Project Current Proposal
Residential Density 32.78 du/acre 34.4 du/acre
Density Bonus Requested 8.4% 12.8%
Height of Structures Building 1 – 79.5 feet Building 1 – 78.6 feet
Memory Care Rooms 35 35
Building 1 Retail
Stevens Creek Blvd frontage 60% 10%
Rear of building 26% 5%
Retail Square Footage 17,600 4,000
Building 1 Parking
Residential 81 32
Residential Care 27 18
Retail 103 23
Total Building 1 211 73
Building
1
Building
2
Townhomes/Rowhome
Figure 1: Westport development layout.
27
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 3
Previous Entitlements
On August 18, 2020, the City Council approved permits to allow construction of a mixed-
use development on the site that was occupied by the Oaks Shopping Center. The
primary components of that 2 project were:
• Two residential/commercial buildings:
o Building 1 was a six-story building with 131 senior, licensed assisted living units,
27 memory care residences, and 17,600 square-feet of ground-floor
retail/commercial space.
o Building 2 was a six-story building with 48 BMR senior independent living units
and 2,400 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial.
• 70 single-family residential townhouses and 18 single-family residential rowhouse
condominiums.
• A one-level, below-ground parking garage with 191 parking spaces.
• 44,945 square feet of Residential Common Open Space
• 2,915 square feet of Commercial Common Open Space
• 386 onsite and offsite trees, replacing the 73 protected development trees proposed to
be either removed or relocated.
• Height waivers of the 45 foot height limit in the General Plan to allow:
o Building 1 to be 70’ 0” to the eave line, and 79’ 6” to the roof ridge.
o Building 2 to be 65’ to the eave line, and 74’ 6” to the roof ridge.
• Slope line setback waivers of the 1:1 slope line setback from the curb line in the
General Plan to a slope line setback of 1:1.70 for Building 1 and a slope line setback of
1:1.48 for Building 2.
• Incentive/concession allowing all BMR units to be consolidated in one of the two
senior housing buildings (Building 2) rather than dispersed between the two senior
housing buildings and townhouses/rowhouses.
The approval also included a vesting tentative map (VTM) (TM-2018-03) subdividing the
property into two separate parcels (one 4.7 acre and one 3.1-acre parcel). Subsequently, a
revised VTM (TM-2021-002) subdividing the property into three parcels, with the BMR
building (Building 2) on its own parcel, was approved by City Council on September 7,
2021.
On December 21, 2021, the Cupertino City Council approved a Modification to a
Development Permit (M-2021-003), an Architectural & Site Approval (ASA-2021-007),
2 Since early 2024, Building 2 has been occupied and functioning in its capacity as an age restricted BMR
building. As of the date of this staff report, approximately 80 of the 88 townhomes/rowhouses have a
certificate of occupancy.
28
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 4
and Heart of the City Exception (EXC-2021-003) to allow the following modifications to
Building 1 of the Westport Development project:
• Limited the 8,000-square-foot ground floor dining facility to residents of Building 1
and their guests only, rather than being open to the public.
• Adjusted the unit mix, adding more two-bedroom units while reducing studio units
in Building 1, and adding eight memory care rooms (for a total of 35 memory care
rooms), but decreasing the total residential unit count by that same number (131 to
123).
• A density bonus parking alternative standard that reduced the underground
parking garage to a single floor limited to the areas under Building 1, while utilizing
parking lifts and valet service to maintain the original parking stall count.
• Reduced massing on the top floor to accommodate a sixth-floor aqua therapy pool.
• Allowed 40% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 75% of
the rear of the building to be occupied by non-retail uses, with no change in retail
square footage from the original permit.
Current Development Permit Modification Request
Cascade Zak, representing the applicant, Related, is now requesting a modification to the
Development Permit (M-2024-003) and an Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-
2024-003) to Building 1:
1. Utilize their remaining density bonus Incentive/Concession to reduce the amount
of retail from 17,600 square feet to 4,000 square feet.
2. Request a density bonus to increase the senior assisted living dwelling count by
13 units, from 123 to 136, and to modify the unit mix. The number of memory care
rooms remains unchanged at 35.
3. Utilize provisions of state law (Assembly Bill 2097) to remove the underground
parking facility (a decrease of 146 parking stalls for the development)
4. Make minor adjustments to the proposed structure, including reducing the
building height, moving sixth floor amenities to the ground floor, and decreasing
the overall square footage of the proposed building from 199,800 square feet to
195,253 square feet.
5. Waive the application of the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee.
The applicant is proposing to utilize the provisions of State Density Bonus law and the
newly enacted Assembly Bill 2097 (AB2097) to achieve these changes. However, while
the applicant is entitled to utilize provisions of the State Density Bonus law, the
provisions of AB2097 that prohibit cities from requiring minimum parking requirements
do not apply to this project since the project was approved and entitled prior to the
enactment of AB2097. Therefore, the applicant cannot apply AB2097 retroactively to an
already entitled project.
29
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 5
Analysis:
1. Reduction in Retail
The Heart of the City Specific Plan limits the area of uses that do not involve the direct
retailing of goods or services to the public to no more than 25% of the building frontage
along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and no more than 50% of the rear of the building. On
December 21, 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception allowing
40% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 75% of the rear of the
building to be occupied by non-retail uses. There was no change approved in 2021 to the
total retail square footage in Building 1 (17,600 sq. ft.) from that approved through the
original 2020 permit.
Approved Building 1 Ground Floor Proposed Building 1 Ground Floor
Figure 2 Comparison between the approved and proposed retail portions of Building 1. Retail is filled in
with red, resident amenities in orange, and Back-of-House/Support in blue.
The applicant submitted a letter, dated June 18, 2024 (Attachment C), stating that since
their application is a modification to the overall Westport Development project, the
developer of Building 1 remains eligible for the second of two allowable State density
bonus law incentives and concessions allowed for the 8.1-acre Westport Development.
Therefore, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to
reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1 3.
3 The Westport Development includes 29 units of a base density of 237 units that are designated very low
income. State density bonus law allows the development two incentives/concessions.
30
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 6
As illustrated in Figure 3, the proposed retail locations are on the corner of Building 1
adjacent to Mary Avenue, as well as the development’s driveway entrance along Stevens
Creek Boulevard. The other uses along Stevens Creek are active and administrative uses
limited to resident access, including the front office and wellness center for the senior
assisted living facility.
The applicant suggests that the spaces currently entitled as a retail area in Building 1
occupy ground floor building space that could otherwise be used for mechanical systems
and back-of-house spaces for the senior assisted living facility. The currently proposed
locations for these uses are in more expensive-to-build basements or upper-level building
locations.
Further, should Building 1 be constructed, an agreement requires the users of Building 1
to pay for a portion of shared infrastructure with Building 2 as on-going site maintenance
costs. This allows the operator of the BMR building (Building 2) better to finance the long-
term operating costs of affordable units.
2. Assisted Living Unit Count
The Westport Development provides 12% of its base density as affordable to very low-
income households, which entitles the development to a 38.75% density bonus, or a total
count of 329 units for the entire development pursuant to State density bonus law. As
proposed, the total number of units in the development would increase from 259 to 272
units due to the addition of 13 assisted living units in Building 1 (12.8% Density Bonus).
This amounts to an increase from 123 assisted living units to 136 assisted living units in
Building 1. The number of memory care rooms in Building 1 would remain unchanged
at 35 units under the current proposal.
The original development was found consistent with the BMR Manual requiring that the
BMR Units in Building 2 and Building 1:
• Be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per
unit, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction.
• Unit size should be generally representative of the unit sizes within the market-
rate portion of residential projects.
• Interior features and finishes in affordable units shall be durable, of good quality
and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing.
Table 1 (below) shows the proposed unit mix within BMR Building 2 and the market-rate
Building 1. The City Council had found that the original 2020 and 2021 approvals met the
BMR Manual’s standard of “comparability.” Table 1 demonstrates that the comparability
31
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 7
of the unit mix between Buildings 1 & 2, as proposed, is even more consistent with the
City’s requirements than the project approved in 2021.
3. Parking Reduction
Due to the amount of affordable housing and location of the site, the project had been
previously approved with a Density Bonus reduced parking standard. The below-grade
parking garage level in Building 1 was included to address the parking needs for Building
1 users (residents, visitors, staff and retail uses) and 23 spaces for Building 2 residents.
Through the current modification, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the
underground parking and provide all necessary parking at the surface level. However,
the applicant will continue meeting existing obligations to provide parking for the other
portions of the Westport Development (Building 2 residents and the town homes) and
will adjust the parking provided for the users of Building 1 to be more reflective of the
parking required to serve their needs, as further described below.
Parking for Building 2 users and Townhomes
The Westport Development utilizes the provisions of State density bonus law to provide
0.5 space per bedroom and the City may not impose a different, higher parking
requirement for the development. Under State density bonus law, the project needed to
provide a total of 30 spaces for Building 2. Seven of these spaces were provided at the
surface level on the parcel on which Building 2 is located, while the remaining 23 spaces
were to be provided in the underground parking garage. The applicant is now proposing
to provide these 23 spaces, previously located below grade under Building 1, at-grade on
the parcel that Building 1 will be located on. In addition, the applicant will continue to
provide seven surface parking spaces for retail use in Building 2 on the Building 1 parcel.
Table 1: Unit Comparability Between Buildings 1 & 2
Approved Building 1 (123 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom
Average Unit Size 530 s.f. 710 s.f. 1,110 s.f.
Unit Count 12 75 36
Mix Percentage 10% 61% 29%
Proposed Building 1 (136 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom
Average Unit Size 530 s.f. 710 s.f. 1,110 s.f.
Unit Count 27 79 30
Mix Percentage 20% 58% 22%
Building 2 (48 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom
Average Unit Size 518.6 s.f. 615.7 s.f. 843 s.f.
Unit Count 9 28 11
Mix Percentage 19% 58% 23%
32
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 8
The existing townhomes each have two car garages, with an additional 21 surface spaces
available for guests on the parcel on which the townhomes are located. The applicant is
proposing to continue to provide six parking spaces as guest parking for the townhome
portion of the development at surface level on the Building 1 parcel. As a condition of
approval, the applicant must mark all the spaces with signage to identify the intended
parking space user prior to issuance of final occupancy.
Parking for Building 1 users
Changes to parking provided for Building 1 users include eliminating all parking spaces
for the assisted living or memory care residents, providing 3 surface parking spaces for
residents, 10 surface spaces for employees, 5 surface spaces for guests and 16 surface
parking spaces for the reduced retail space, as indicated in Table 2 below. The applicant
indicates that they wish to use the provisions of AB2097 and provide as much parking as
they believe will be needed to serve Building 1 users and that the City may not impose
any minimum parking requirements on their project. While the project site, due to its
location, is eligible for AB2097’s parking provisions, the Westport project itself was
approved prior to enactment of these provisions, and thus AB2097 cannot apply
retroactively to this previously entitled project.
However, since the property is in the Planned Development with General Commercial
and Residential uses (P (CG/Res)) zoning district 6, staff have prepared a parking analysis
4 The Westport Development was approved with a parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom in
conformance with CA state density bonus law. Required parking for Building 1 residents would be 83.
5 See footnote 4. Required parking for Building 2 residents would be 30 spaces, seven spaces on the lot
Building 2 is on, and the remaining on the lot that Building 1 is on.
6 CMC 19.80: Planned Development Zones is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or
redevelopment of the City that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses and to provide
for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns,
topographical considerations, and community design objectives.
Table 2: Comparison of Approved and Proposed Parking
Previously Approved Proposed
Residential (Building 1)4 80 (below grade) 8
Residential (Building 2)5 26 (below grade) 26
Residential (Townhomes) 6 (surface) 6
Bldg. 1 Facility Employees 28 (below grade) 10
Retail (Building 1) 71 (10 below grade, 61 surface) 16
Retail (Building 2) 7 (surface) 7
Total Building 1 218 (144 below grade and
74 surface) 73 (all surface)
33
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 9
for the Building 1 user as seen in Table 3 below, based on the following information
provided by the applicant (Attachment G):
• The median age of the tenants in the Senior assisted living units is anticipated to be
approximately 84, based on the applicant/operator’s experience at similar facilities.
Therefore, a very small percentage (8%) of the tenants will drive or own a vehicle.
According to the applicant many residents dispose of, or donate, their vehicles prior
to downsizing into one of their facilities, preferring to use the concierge vehicles
operated by the facility.
• Almost 75% of the employees of their other facilities are incentivized to use
alternative means of transportation or park elsewhere (here, De Anza College
facilities are located close by, and the operator is in talks with them regarding
parking arrangements).
• Guests are usually only at the facility for a maximum of 90 minutes per visit and can
use public parking or park at De Anza College, if necessary.
• Retail reduced to 4,000 square feet, significantly reducing parking demand based on
the City’s retail parking standard of 1 space per 250 square feet.
Table 3: Anticipated Parking Demand vs. Proposed Supply For Building 1
Previously Approved Proposed Expected
Residents 80 3 14
Employees (40
max per shift) 28 10 13
Guests (included in resident count) 5 10
Retail 71 16 16
Total 179 34 53
GAP 19
Based on the parking analysis, there appears to be a gap of approximately 19 spaces
between the reasonably expected parking demand and the parking currently proposed.
Discussions with the applicant have indicated that they are voluntarily open to adding
surface parking spaces, where possible, to allow the parking supply to get closer to the
expected parking demand. Upon an analysis of the site, it appears that there is room to
add additional surface parking spaces within the site. However, the specific number of
additional spaces that could be added has yet to be determined. Therefore, as a condition
of approval, the applicant is required to update the site plan to add a minimum of 20
onsite parking spaces, prior to issuance of building permits.
In addition, if sustained, prolonged parking (more than 3 consecutive days) is observed
in the right of way, the operator will identify an additional 20 spaces for use by the
facility, on- or off-site. The applicant shall provide a recorded agreement with any offsite
34
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 10
parking facility, in the event the property owner/operator is required to provide such
additional parking.
In the alternative, the applicant has suggested that they could eliminate the 4,000 square
feet of retail space being provided in Building 1, by modifying their remaining Density
Bonus Incentive/Concession request, which would allow the use of 16 spaces, currently
earmarked for retail uses, for the residential portion of Building 1.
If the Planning Commission disagrees with the above analysis, it could either recommend
a different parking count that the developer must provide based on a different
justification or deny the modification to the proposed parking arrangement on the basis
that AB2097 does not apply to this project.
4. Architectural & Site Approval
As described previously, the developer proposes modifying Building 1 as follows:
• Increasing the footprint of the curved (sickle) portion of the building along Mary
Avenue by 8 feet.
• Relocating the memory care terrace to the interior of the project to overlook the
central green.
• Reducing ground floor height from 20 feet to 18 feet, with incremental height
increases to the upper floors. The overall building height would be reduced to 78.6
feet due to this change.
• Moving the therapy pool terrace and wellness gym to the ground floor from the
sixth floor. This reduces mass along Stevens Creek Boulevard on the sixth floor.
None of the changes listed, above, have any effect on the programming of the site, except
as previously described in the discussions related to the reduction of retail use and
elimination of underground parking. The overall architectural theme of the project is not
proposed to be modified with this application and the project proposes to continue to be
very similar to the architectural style (Mediterranean) that was previously approved.
5. Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee
At the revised 136-unit count, Building 1 would be required to pay approximately
$4,080,000 ($30,000 per senior citizen housing development unit) as Park Land Dedication
In-Lieu of Fees. The applicant has identified the following as reasons for the City waiving
the fee:
• “New pedestrian walkways connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue
through the project. The construction of the walkways is not strictly required by the
City’s Zoning Code; however, they could improve pedestrian circulation in the area,
35
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 11
including Creation of a connection between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino
Memorial Park.
• Residents of the senior housing units in Building 1 cannot reasonably be anticipated
to generate a material demand on City park lands and instead are more reasonably
anticipated to use the open space amenities included in Building 1 and its publicly
accessible, privately maintained Central Green.
• Strategy HE-2.3.9 of the Housing Element requires the City to explore revising its
Park Land Dedication Fee, including a specific reference to allowing credits for
privately owned and maintained public open spaces and other pedestrian
connections and trails.”
In accordance with the Municipal Code (CMC 13.08.100), park land shall be dedicated to
the City or the fee in lieu thereof shall be paid, as determined by the City, at the time of
building permit issuance or recordation of a final subdivision map, whichever occurs
earliest. The City has consistently determined that the open space provided on site does
not conform to the private open space (for which credit may be provided) nor the park
land dedication requirement consistent with the requirements of CMC Chapter 13.08.050
(F). Therefore, the determination has been that the project must pay a Park Land
Dedication In-Lieu of Fee subject to CMC Chapter 13.08.060 Fees in Lieu of Park Land
Dedication. To date, the developer has already paid $3.69M to date for 123 units 7. With the
change to the programming, that is, providing 13 more assisted living units, the applicant
would owe park land in lieu of dedication fees for these additional units.
The walkway referenced by the applicant as the justification for requesting a fee waiver
is an existing vehicular path between Building 1 and the remainder of the Westport
development, which has long been a part of the site design. It is not a new design feature,
nor does it have separated/designated bike lanes or public access easements. As a result,
sthe project should not receive credit for any connection afforded by this primarily
vehicular connection. Additionally, since the project will be occupied by seniors, the park
land dedication in lieu of fee is already discounted to allow for the estimated reduction
in use of public open spaces by seniors as allowed by Chapter 13.08.
Further, although the Housing Element Strategy HE-2.3.9 may require the City to explore
reduction in development fees, a policy to implement this strategy is not expected to be
adopted until sometime in mid-2026. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City require
the applicant to pay the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fee for the additional 13 units
and does not recommend a refund/waiver of the fees that have already been paid.
7 $3.93M in park fees on 12/21/21 (131 units x $30,000). However, when the project scope was modified to
reduce units from 131 to 123, the City issued the developer a refund of $240,000 (8 units x $30,000).
36
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 12
However, the City could waive the fee if it wishes to assist this developer in the
development of this market-rate project.
Other Department/Agency Review
The City’s Building Division, Public Works Department, Environmental Services
Division, Sheriff’s Department, Cupertino Sanitary District and the Santa Clara County
Fire Department have reviewed and conditioned the project.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was
certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. The Final EIR identifies
mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts of the
project to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures were adopted and made
conditions of project approval.
The City conducted a CEQA analysis of changes to the project to determine the
appropriate level of subsequent environmental review. Under CEQA Guidelines section
15164, an addendum to an EIR should be prepared where there are (1) no substantial
changes to the project requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially
increased significant environmental effects of the project; (2) no substantial changes in
circumstances requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially
increased significant environmental effects of the project; and (3) no new, previously
unknown or unknowable, information of substantial importance showing: (a) new or
substantially more severe significant efforts than were discussed or shown in the EIR; (b)
that previously infeasible mitigation measures/alternatives are now feasible and would
substantially reduce significant efforts; or (c) that considerably different mitigation
measures than analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce significant effects.
The analysis determined that proposed changes to the project meet the criteria for an
addendum. To this end, an addendum was prepared (see Attachment D), in which they
concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR
because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications
to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter
what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in
the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require
major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The addendum reviews each topic in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and concludes
that neither the modifications to the project nor new circumstance or information will
37
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 13
result in an environmental impact that is new or more severe than the impacts studied in
the Initial Study and EIR.
Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the
modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR.
PUBLIC NOTICING AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice &
Legal Ad
Agenda
Site Signage (10 days prior to the hearing)
Public hearing notices were mailed to
property owners within a 300’ radius of
the project site (10 days prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City’s official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to the
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s
website (one week prior to the hearing)
PUBLIC COMMENT
The City has received three comments as of the publishing of the Staff Report. Please refer
to Attachment F, Public Comments. These comments are primarily related to concerns
about the reduction in parking, the reduction in retail space and concerns about the
current operating issues surrounding parking related to the BMR senior housing
development.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the project modifications, with the conditions of the
approval proposed, because the changes to the project will not create adverse traffic,
noise, or safety impacts to the surrounding area and each finding for approval of the
proposed project, consistent with Chapters 19.56, 19.156, and 19.168 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code, may be made as reflected in the findings of the draft resolutions
attached.
In the alternative, the Planning Commission could recommend denial of the project due
to the inapplicability of AB2097.
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for
its decision on the project. The City Council’s decision will be final unless reconsidered
within 10 days of the decision. If a petition for reconsideration is not filed, and the project
38
M-2024-003, Westport Cupertino April 22, 2025
ASA-2024-003 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard Page 14
is approved by the City Council, the applicant may apply for building permits at that
time.
Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community
Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1 Draft Resolution for M-2024-003
2 Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-003
3 Letter from J. Abrams Law to Cupertino City Staff dated June 18, 2024
4 Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1
5 Project Plans
6 Public Comments
7 Applicant Parking Exhibit
39
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO A
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL,
AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048)
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Addendum to
the Environmental Impact Report and approve the Modification to the Development
Permit, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit M:
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Cupertino the 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
40
EXHIBIT M
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR
CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: M-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution;
and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record,
at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-
105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks,
Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared
which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that
the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the
Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented (Resolution No. XXXX), and approve the Architectural and Site
Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution
presented(Resolution No. XXX); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of
Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission
held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and
41
WHEREAS, on May X, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application
for a Development Permit.
WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that
the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18,
2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.
Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances
under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major
revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant
environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial
importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or
substantially increased significant environmental effects.
WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate
mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project.
Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the
proposed project.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
1. The proposed residential development and/or use will be located and conducted in a
manner consistent with any applicable Government Code requirements, the
Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and underlying zoning
regulations of the Municipal Code, and complies with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, parking reduction, waivers,
and incentive/concession, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance and has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses.
Additionally, all mitigation measures through the EIR Addendum that are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and will be made conditions of
approval to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project
will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
2. Notwithstanding subsection 19.156.040B(1), the Director of Community Development
may deny a housing development project proposed under this Section with a written
finding based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing
42
development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined and
determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety
or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was
certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. To analyze the modifications of
the project, an addendum was prepared in which they concluded that the proposed modified
project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the
approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean
parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most
impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial
changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects. Based on the information provided in the Addendum,
construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or
increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR.
3. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the
requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional
housing need. (Findings required by Government Code Section 65863(b)(2).)
The remaining sites in the housing element inventory are adequate to meet the requirements
of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing
need. The proposed project does not reduce the density of the site below what was projected in
the City’s 5th Cycle housing element; the housing element shows a site capacity of 200 units,
whereas 272 units are proposed. However, the proposed project includes only 48 lower income
units, whereas the site was projected to contain 200 lower income units. Nonetheless, with the
update to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Priority Housing sites in the inventory are
adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need, in that
1,242 1 lower income units have been approved by the City at the remaining housing element
sites (Vallco Shopping District, Marina Plaza, the Hamptons, and the Barry Swenson site),
well in excess of the 563 units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s share of the
regional lower income housing need. The City has approved a total of 3,209 2 units on these
four sites, also well in excess of the City’s allocation of 1,064 units to meet its total share of the
regional housing need.
1 Consisting of the following lower income units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 1,201 units;
Veranda affordable housing (Barry Swenson site), 18 units; Marina Plaza, 16 units; Hamptons, 7 units net.
2 Consisting of the following total units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 2,402 units; Veranda
(Barry Swenson site), 19 units; Marina Plaza, 188 units; Hamptons, 600 net new units.
43
4. The applicant has requested a density bonus. Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code
Section 19.56.070, before approving an application that includes a request for density
bonus, incentive, parking reduction and/or waiver, the decision-making body shall
make the following findings, as applicable:
a) A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any
incentives, parking reductions or waivers requested.
The application is for a density bonus project that provides for 20.5% of its base density as
Below Market Rate Housing. Because 12% of the base units on-site will be available to
Very Low Income seniors, the project is eligible for a 38.75 density bonus, parking
reduction, waivers, and up to two (2) incentives/concessions.
b) A finding that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable
and actual cost reductions based upon the documentation provided by the
applicant and the findings of the peer reviewer, if incentive(s) or concession(s) are
requested (other than mixed use development).
Consolidation of BMR Units: On August 19, 2020, the City Council approved a
concession to consolidate all BMR units in Building 2, rather than dispersing them
throughout Building 1 and the Townhouse/Rowhouse portion.
Reduction in Ground Floor Retail: In December 2021, the City Council approved a
Heart of the City Exception to allow a reduced frontage along Stevens Creek to have retail
uses (17,600 square feet of retail at the ground floor.) Since the project is eligible for two
state density bonus law incentives and concessions, due to the amount of affordable
housing provided with the project, the developer requests to use the second available
incentive and concession to further reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1.
The currently approved retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create a
more efficient building design for the applicant. The applicant proposes to do this by
locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of
Building 1 rather than the previously approved, more expensive-to-build basement or
upper-level building locations.
c) If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all
requirements included Section 19.56.030C have been met.
The density bonus is not based on the donation of land, so the finding is not applicable.
d) If the density bonus is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, a
finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (D) have been met.
The density bonus is not based on the inclusion of a childcare facility, so the finding is not
applicable.
44
e) If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding
that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (E) have been met.
The density bonus is not based on a condominium conversion, so the finding is not
applicable.
f) If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all requirements
included in Section 19.56.40 (B) (2) have been met.
While the project is a mixed-use development, the density bonus is not based on the mixed-
used development as an incentive, so the finding is not applicable.
g) If a waiver is requested, a finding that that the development standards for which
the waivers are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the
construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives
or concessions permitted.
Height and Slope Setback Waivers: On August 19, 2020, the City Council found that
applying the height and slope setback limitations to Buildings 1 & 2 would physically
preclude the project by: (a) decreasing the amount of proposed open space and landscaped
areas below what is otherwise required by the City; (b) reducing the average size of senior
units; (c) reducing commercial ceiling heights; (d) decreasing above-ground parking and
increasing underground parking. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would not
increase the previously approved Height and Slope Setback waivers since the height of the
proposed building is lower and therefore, the waiver is reduced.
h) If a reduction in off-street parking standards for an eligible housing development
is requested, a finding that all the applicable requirements in Section 19.56.040.C
have been met. (The project is eligible to provide 0.5 space per bedroom, which
requires at least 11% very low income or 20% low income units; within one-half
mile of a Major Transit Stop; and unobstructed Access to the Major Transit Stop.)
The applicant is no longer requesting a reduction in off-street parking standards pursuant
to State Density Bonus law.
5. Since the applicable findings required above can be made, the decision-making body
may deny an application for a waiver only if one of the following written findings as
applicable to each type of application, supported by substantial evidence:
a) That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have an adverse impact on real
property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or
There are no affected Historic Resources in the vicinity.
45
b) That the incentive, concession or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact
upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible
method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without
rendering the residential project unaffordable to low- and moderate-income
households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific, adverse impact" means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective,
identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they
existed on the date that the application for the residential project was deemed
complete; or
As evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and the First Addendum to the EIR, there are no significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the
residential Project was deemed complete.
c) That the incentive, concession or waiver is contrary to state or federal law.
The requested waivers are not contrary to state or federal law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter and the Addendum, subject to the conditions which are
enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 7 thereof, and those contained in all
other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby:
1. Determines that the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State
Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council; and
2. Adopts the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse
Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project; and
3. Approves the application for a Modification to the Development Permit,
Application No. M-2024-003; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application
no. M-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April X, 2025 and
are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
46
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled
as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014,
G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as
may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data
including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks,
property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or
construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate
this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT AND PRIOR APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2024-003 shall be applicable to
this approval. The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TR-2018-22, TM-2018-
03, TM-2021-002, DP-2018-05, U-2019-03, EXC-2019-03, EA-2018-04, EXC-2021-003,
ASA-2021-007, and M-2021-003 shall be applicable to this approval unless in conflict
with the conditions of approval of this resolution.
4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
Due to the reduction in retail commercial square footage in the development,
13,600 square feet of commercial allocation is returned to the available commercial
allocation city-wide.
5. PARKING MODIFICATION
The applicant will work with Staff to supply a further 20 parking spaces dispersed
within the Building 1 parcel to accommodate the employees, guests, and residents
of the assisted living facility (including memory care). In addition, if sustained,
prolonged parking (more than 3 consecutive days) is observed in the right of way,
the operator will identify an additional 20 spaces for use by the facility, on- or off-
site. The applicant shall provide a recorded agreement with any offsite parking
facility, in the event the property owner/operator is required to provide such
additional parking.
6. PARKING SPACE SIGNAGE
All spaces within the development shall be marked to identify:
47
a. Parking for retail use restricted to retail use during the hours of operation of
the business
b. Parking for Residential Building 2 for exclusive use
c. Parking for Townhomes for exclusive use
d. Parking for Residential Building 1 for exclusive use for employees, residents
and guests
7. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall
agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold
harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents
(collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim,
action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding
(collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or
more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the
applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project,
the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or
determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The
indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs
awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs,
liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether
incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such
proceeding.
The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees
and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall
include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs
and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The
applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs
awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section
1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall
cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such
reimbursement.
The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs
incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting,
revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report,
negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary
48
by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental
review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.
The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for
business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.
8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written
notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the
dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that
the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a),
has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with
all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later
challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
1. PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE
Prior to building permit issuance, the project is subject to payment of park fees in-lieu
of park land dedication under the City’s Park Land Dedication Fee (Chapter 13.08 and
Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for the 13 new dwelling units. The
current fee is $30,000 per unit and may be subject to modifications per the City’s
annual property assessment and latest fee schedule adjustment.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE
Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have
approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon
the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the
jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement
of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further
requirements.
2. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED
49
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures
shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1
through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section,
firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the
California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s)
3. STANDPIPES REQUIRED
Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance
with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall
be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location
of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual
wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection
shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall
be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47.
CFC Sec. 905
4. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED
Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire
Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500
feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 6500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire
hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent
public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C.
See approved hydrant spotting plan pc#20-4568
5. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire
protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors
and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project,
and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be
incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire
suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically
connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the
potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under
consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the
requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as
having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety
Code 13114.7
6. REQUIRED FIRE DEPT. ACCESS
50
Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30
feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in
height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2.
Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross
building area of more than62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two
separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross
building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire
apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved
automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2
occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units
shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access
roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted and amended by CUPMC.
7. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED
Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum
unobstructed width of 26 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum
circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope
of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and
Specifications sheet A-1.
8. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED
Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum
radius of 60 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire
Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. cul-de-sac. CFC Sec. 503 as
adopted and amended by CUPMC.
9. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS
1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet
(9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be
provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire
department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located
within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads
shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity
of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3.
Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition
shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet
(9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the
building, as approved by the fire code official.
10. TURN RADIUS (CIRCULATING):
51
The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater
radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that
Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without
dead ends.
11. TIMING OF INSTALLATION
When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to
be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of
protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street
intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in
accordance with Section 505.2 CFC Sec. 501.4
12. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS
Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72.
13. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY
All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33
and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on
subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33
14. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers
or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and
visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast
with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers
shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response.
Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a
minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7
mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed
from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1
15. FIRE LANES REQUIRED
The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. The
minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required circulating access roadways
and 60 feet where aerial access is required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be
designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California
Vehicle Code.
52
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this Xth day of May 2025, by the following vote:
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
53
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT
PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND
GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR
CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048)
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Architectural
and Site Approval Permit, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached
hereto as Exhibit ASA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Cupertino the 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RECUSED: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
54
EXHIBIT ASA
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND
DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048)
______________________________________________________________________________
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2024-003
Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak)
Property Owner: Related California
Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution;
and
WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record,
at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-
105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks,
Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared
which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote
that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the
Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the
Resolution presented (Resolution No. XXXX), and approve the Architectural and Site
Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution
presented(Resolution No. XXX); and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of
Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission
held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and
WHEREAS, on May X, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
Project; and
55
Resolution No. __________________
Page 3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application
for a Development Permit.
WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that
the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18,
2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects.
Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances
under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major
revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant
environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial
importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or
substantially increased significant environmental effects.
WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate
mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project.
Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the
proposed project.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
1. The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, waivers, and
incentive/concession the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been
adopted and incorporated into the project in order to mitigate potential impacts to a less
than significant level. The modifications do not influence the programming of the site and
are all within the provisions of state law. As a result, the project will not be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
2. The proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the
General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned
development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or
other entitlements which regulate the subject property including, but not limited
to, adherence to the following specific criteria:
56
Resolution No. __________________
Page 4
a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition
related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing
buildings.
The project is within the approved Building 1 proposal as approved by City Council on
December 21, 2021. This maintains the mix of housing types that include two
multistory high-density structures, as well as lower density townhome/rowhouse
condominiums. The site is bordered by high density residential to the north and De
Anza College to the South, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The development is
designed to concentrate the taller structures on the northwest corner of Mary Avenue
and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection while the shorter townhome/rowhouse
structures are placed closer to the lower scale apartment and townhomes developments
along Mary Avenue. This design provides a gradual transition between buildings of
different height and bulk.
b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and
in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and
colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being
consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and with the future
character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are
situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and
screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly
storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots
should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of
pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary
destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for
development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by
the engineering and building departments and provide shielding to prevent
spill-over light to adjoining property owners.
The design quality of the development is consistent with the original approval of
Westport development from August 2020, as further modified in December 2021. Both
the high-density structures and townhome/rowhouse buildings are consistent with the
design qualities of a Mediterranean-type development and the architectural style is
consistent throughout the development. Further, the planting plan is consistent with
the intent of the Heart of the City Specific Plan guidelines. Unsightly uses such as
loading and trash pickup have been placed within the buildings away from view of
neighboring uses. Utility installations have been designed to be screened by
landscaping and or incorporated into the building design. The final lighting for the
development will be reviewed as part of the review of the project construction
57
Resolution No. __________________
Page 5
documents to ensure that they meet safety requirements while avoiding spill-over light
to adjacent properties.
c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor
advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall
positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize
with adjacent development.
Signage approval is not included in this application.
d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new
development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light
and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls
and other appropriate design measures.
The project does not abut any existing residential development. The existing multi-
family development located across Mary Avenue (Glenbrook Apartments) will be
buffered from any impact because the project has been designed to maintain trees along
the frontage and has been designed with adequate parking on-site. The buildings have
been designed with setbacks from the curb line greater than the 9-feet required within
the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution
beginning on PAGE 5 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for
this Project, the City Council hereby Approves the application for a Architectural and Site
Approval, Application No. ASA-2024-003
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application
no. ASA-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April XX, 2025
and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled
as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014,
58
Resolution No. __________________
Page 6
G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as
may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data
including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks,
property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or
construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate
this approval and may require additional review.
3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. M-2024-003 shall be applicable to this
approval.
4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the
first page of the building plans.
5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS
The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the
original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans
(including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural
treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance
of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to
ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by
the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this
permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.
6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC,
Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified
landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been
installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape
installation report.
The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to
confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the
landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution
uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation
of an irrigation schedule.
59
Resolution No. __________________
Page 7
The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The
landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and
irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”
7. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be
established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her
designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape
installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted.
a. Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment
period and water requirements for established landscapes.
b. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection;
pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-
thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed
plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices.
c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that
may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall
installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through
appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as
recommended by a landscaping professional.
8. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full Landscape
Documentation Package, per sections 14.15.050 A, B, C, and D of the Landscape
Ordinance, for projects with landscape area 500 square feet or more or elect to
submit a Prescriptive Compliance Application per sections 14.15.040 A, B, and C for
projects with landscape area between 500 square feet and 2,500 square feet. The
Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Application shall be
reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development prior to issuance of building permits, and additional requirements per
sections 14.15.040 D, E, F, and G or 14.15.050 E, F, G, H, and I will be required to be
reviewed and approved prior to final inspections.
9. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g.
texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and
provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the
productivity and water efficiency of the soil.
60
Resolution No. __________________
Page 8
The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the
landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the
design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director
of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package.
10. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and
approved by Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The
landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in
conformance with Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, and the pesticide control
measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
11. SIGN PROGRAM
A sign program is required for this project. The sign program shall be approved by
the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits.
12. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any
structures approved in conjunction with the project.
13. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in
underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the
Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to
installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be
permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and
landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as
determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be
located in the front or side building setback area.
14. SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened
so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening
materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the
screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is
designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance
of building permits.
61
Resolution No. __________________
Page 9
15. TREE PROTECTION
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be
prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following
measures shall be added to the protection plan:
• For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be
installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.
• No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers
approved by the Project Arborist.
• No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in
the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City’s consulting arborist shall be consulted
before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.
• Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-
inch depth.
• Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.
• Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.
• A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees,
prior to final occupancy.
The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist
prior to issuance of building permits. The City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the
trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading
or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned
above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
16. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a
detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility
structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department
connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and
applicable utility agencies.
17. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with
regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any
misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the
Community Development Department.
62
Resolution No. __________________
Page 10
18. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall
agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold
harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents
(collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim,
action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding
(collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or
more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the
applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project,
the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or
determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The
indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs
awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs,
liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether
incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such
proceeding.
The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees
and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall
include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs
and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The
applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs
awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section
1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall
cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such
reimbursement.
The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs
incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting,
revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report,
negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary
by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental
review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.
The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for
business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.
63
Resolution No. __________________
Page 11
19. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this XXth day of May, 2025, by the following vote:
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Liang Chao, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
64
1
J. ABRAMS LAW, P.C.
538 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Jim Abrams
Jabrams@jabramslaw.com
(415) 999-4402
VIA E-EMAIL
June 18, 2024
Gian Martire
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
GianM@cupertino.org
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Mr. Martire:
This firm represents the project sponsor of the “Building 1” development (“Building 1”) within
the Westport Cupertino project (the “Project”). This letter responds to your request for an
explanation of the legal justifications authorizing the following modifications to the Building 1
approvals issued by the City Council on December 7, 2021:
• Modify the approved senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units
• Eliminate the basement-level parking garage;
• Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet; and
• Waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee.
Though not discussed at length herein, we underscore that each of the above modifications are
being pursued to make the construction of Building 1 and the overall approved Project
financeable. Development of Building 1 is currently not financeable due to challenging capital
market conditions, inflated construction costs, shifts in market demand, and expensive design
elements in the currently approved design of Building 1. We respectfully submit that prompt
processing of the modifications would further the goals of the City’s pending draft Housing
Element, promote the use of the density bonus consistent with state law, reduce impact fees that
constrain the production of housing, and streamline application processing.
65
2
Allowing Range of Dwelling Unit Density
The Project’s records and approvals reflect that Cupertino’s General Plan and Zoning Code
permit a maximum residential density on the site (that is, the site’s “base density”) of 237 units.1
Twenty-nine units (or 12% of the base density units) are designated as affordable to very low
income households.2 Under the state density bonus law, this means the Project is eligible for a
density bonus of up 38.75% and could contain up to 329 units.3
As currently approved, the Project includes 88 dwelling units in townhomes, 48 total affordable
units in Building 2, and 123 dwelling units in Building 1, well below maximum permitted
density under the state density bonus law.4 As there are no proposed changes to the Project’s
townhome program or the Project’s on-site affordable program in Building 2, this means
Building 1 is eligible to contain up to 193 units (237 base density units multiplied by 1.3875, less
the 88 townhome units and 48 on-site affordable units).
The project sponsor respectfully requests that the City Council modify the Project approvals to
permit the final design of Building 1 to contain 136 dwelling units (this would be in addition to
the 35 non-residential memory care units). The project sponsor will submit plans demonstrating
that the increase in dwelling units would not require any increase to the approved height and bulk
of Building 1. Instead, the unit count increase would be accommodated through floor plan
modifications and minor façade alterations necessary to include additional balconies. Further, the
submitted plans will demonstrate that the increase to 136 dwelling units would not require
additional state density bonus law waivers or concessions. For example, the design of Building 1
with 136 dwelling units would satisfy increased open space requirements, along with other Code
requirements associated with the increased unit count.
The proposal would allow less than an 11% increase in dwelling unit count over the currently
approved 123-unit count. This is well under the Project’s eligible 38.75% density bonus under
the state density bonus law.
Elimination of Subsurface Basement Garage Level
After the 2021 City Council approval of the current Building 1 design and program, the state
enacted AB-2097 (which prohibits cities from imposing minimum parking requirements on
residential, commercial, and other development projects that are located within one-half mile of
public transit.5 The Project’s approvals reflect that the Project is located within one-half mile of a
major transit stop.6
1 See Figure 2 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s August 18, 2020 meeting.
2 An additional 19 units (8% of the base density units) are designated affordable to low-income households.
3 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(f)(2).
4 The project also includes 35 memory care units; however, the Project’s approval record clearly reflects that these
units are not considered dwelling units by the City and are instead non-residential.
5 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2.
6 See page 25 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s August 18, 2020 and December 7, 2021 meetings.
66
3
While AB-2097 allows cities to impose minimum parking requirements under certain, limited
circumstances,7 the City cannot apply this exemption because more than 20% of its units are
dedicated to very low- and low-income households and/or the elderly.8
As such, the project sponsor is eligible to invoke AB-2097 to eliminate required parking
minimums.
The below-grade parking garage level in Building 1 was included solely for purposes of
addressing the otherwise applicable minimum parking required by Cupertino. The project
sponsor respectfully elects under AB-2097 to eliminate the basement level and associated
parking. No change to Building 1’s current surface parking is proposed, which is permitted under
AB-2097 as voluntarily included.
Reduction in Ground Floor Retail
The 2021 Heart of the City Exception approval for Building 1 requires 17,600 square feet of
retail.9 Since 2021, the retail program has proven detrimental to the financial feasibility of
Building 1 and thereby to completing the sitewide Project improvements associated with
Building 1. This is because the current amount of retail occupies ground floor space that could be
used to create significantly more efficient building design, achieved by locating required
mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than
current, more expensive-to-build basement or upper-level building locations.
The Project’s approvals make clear that the Project only uses one of the two state density bonus
law incentives and concessions for which it is eligible.10 The project sponsor now requests to use
the second available incentive and concession to reduce required ground floor retail in Building
1. The cost-reduction rationale for modifying the otherwise applicable ground floor retail
requirements for Building 1 meets the requirement that state density bonus law concessions
result in identifiable and actual cost reduction.11 The successful construction of Building 1 is
closely tied to the ability of the Building 2 operator to finance affordable housing costs, because,
when completed, the users of Building 1 will pay for a share of on-going site maintenance costs
of shared infrastructure with the Building 2 operator. Unless the financial feasibility of Building
1 is enhanced through the requested concession, Building 1 will not be constructed, and all of
these costs will fall on the affordable housing at Building 2.
7 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2(b).
8 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2(c)(1).
9 See Resolution No. 21-117.
10 See City Council Resolution Nos. 20-106 & 21-118. We note that these resolutions contain a condition of
approval that purports to “waive” any future claim of the project sponsor to receive the second concession for which
it is eligible under state law. The project sponsor would eliminate this condition through a revised application to be
approved by the City Council along with the other design and program changes described herein; however, we note
that nothing in the density bonus law or other state laws (including the Housing Accountability Act) support that the
City may condition project approval upon an applicant’s permanent waiver of state law rights and benefits. Instead,
we respectfully submit that a court and/or the state Housing and Community Development Housing Accountability
Unit would find such a condition unlawful and unenforceable under state law.
11 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(k)(1).
67
4
Credit Against Park Land Dedication Fee
At the revised 136-unit count, Building 1 would be required to pay approximately $4,080,000
($30,000 per senior citizen housing development unit per City Council Resolution No. 23-094)
under the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee. The project sponsor respectfully requests that the
City Council waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee ordinance to help facilitate the
implementation of Building 1 and completion of the Project. We believe that two important
factors specific to the Building 1 development support this waiver.
First, the development of Building 1 includes new pedestrian walkways connecting Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The construction of the walkways is not strictly required by
the City’s Zoning Code; however, will improve pedestrian circulation in the area, including
between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino Memorial Park.
Second, while senior citizen housing developments are subject to a lesser impact fee than general
population housing projects, the project sponsor respectfully asserts that residents of the senior
housing units in Building 1 cannot reasonably be anticipated to generate a material demand on
city park lands and instead are more reasonably anticipated to use the open space amenities
included in Building 1 and its publicly accessible, privately maintained Central Green.
The November 2023 draft of the Cupertino Housing Element expressly requires the City to
explore revising its Park Land Dedication Fee, including a specific reference to allowing credits
for privately owned and maintained public open spaces and other pedestrian connections and
trails. The Housing Element states that the objective of this revision would be to, among other
things, facilitate a substantial amount of lower-income, moderate-income, and above moderate-
income housing, such as the Project and its Building 1.12
Though the draft Housing Element provides that the City would have until June 2026 to
complete the review and revision process, the project sponsor respectfully submits that waiving
application of the Park Land Dedication Fee to the Building 1 more immediately advance the
City’s goals, while still providing the City with the complete set of publicly accessible, privately
maintained green spaces in the Project, as well as enhanced pedestrian circulation, all maintained
at no on-going cost to the City.
Sincerely,
Jim Abrams
12 See Strategy HE-2.3.9 in November 2023 Draft Housing Element.
68
December 2024 | Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377
Westport Mixed-Use Project
Environmental Impact Report
Addendum No. 1
City of Cupertino
Prepared for:
City of Cupertino
Contact: Gian Martire, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino | Community Development
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
(408)777-3319
GianM@cupertino.gov
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Terri McCracken, Principal
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
(510)848-3815
info@placeworks.com
www.placeworks.com
69
.
70
PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
Introduction and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1-1
Standard for Preparation of an Addendum ................................................................................... 2-1
Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 OVERVIEW AND SETTING ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 APPROVED PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT ........................................................................................ 3-4
Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 4-6
4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................ 4-9
4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................... 4-12
4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ....................................................................................... 4-14
4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................ 4-16
4.7 NOISE ............................................................................................................................. 4-18
4.8 TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................... 4-21
4.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 4-24
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT ........................................................................ 5-1
5.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................................... 5-1
5.3 NEW INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 5-1
List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 6-1
71
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii DECEMBER 2024
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Project Site ................................................................................................ 3-2
Figure 3-2 Proposed Site Plan for Building 1 ...................................................................................... 3-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Development Analyzed in the Certified EIR ...................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-2 Changes Following Certification of the EIR ....................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-3 Approved Project Compared to Proposed Modified Project ............................................ 3-4
Table 3-4 Units in Building 1 ............................................................................................................ 3-5
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Trip Generation Study
72
PLACEWORKS 1-1
Introduction and Purpose
On August 19, 2020, the City of Cupertino certified Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377, and approved the Westport Mixed-Use Project.
This document is an Addendum to the 2020 EIR. For the purposes of this Addendum, the 2020 EIR is
considered the “Certified EIR.” Following EIR certification, minor changes were made to the 2020 project
(see Table 3-2, Changes Following Certification of the EIR) and approved by City Council. The 2020 project
with these changes is considered the “Approved Project.” This document is the first Addendum to the
Certified EIR.
Since the time of the Certified EIR and Approved Project, the developer, Related Companies, has proposed
modifications to the Approved Project from what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. For the purposes of
this Addendum, the proposed modifications to the Approved Project are considered the “proposed
Modified Project.” The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the impacts of the construction and
operation of the proposed Modified Project.
Based on the information provided in this Addendum, construction and operation of the proposed
Modified Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified
significant impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. The proposed modifications to the Approved Project
would not result in a substantial change to the project and, therefore, additional environmental review is
not necessary. Detailed discussions of the standards for the preparation of an Addendum, the proposed
modifications, and the environmental analysis of the proposed modifications are provided in Chapter 2,
Standard for Preparation of an Addendum; Chapter 3, Project Description; and Chapter 4, Environmental
Analysis, of this Addendum, respectively.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines,
the City of Cupertino is the lead agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to
approve the proposed action.
73
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1-2 DECEMBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
74
PLACEWORKS 2-1
Standard for Preparation of an Addendum
Pursuant to Section 21166, Subsequent or Supplement Impact Report; Conditions, of CEQA and Section
15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been
certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency
determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified was adopted shows any
of the following:
The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative
declaration.
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the
previous EIR or negative declaration.
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible
and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project
proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present,1 the lead agency must determine
whether to prepare an Addendum or whether no further CEQA documentation is required (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An Addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or
additions to the previously certified EIR are necessary, but there are no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration).
1 See also Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which applies the requirements of Section 15162 to supplemental
EIRs.
75
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
STANDARDS FOR PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM
2-2 DECEMBER 2024
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the Certified EIR
is the appropriate environmental document for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes
proposed by the Modified Project and examines whether, as a result of any changes or new information, a
subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis pursuant to the provisions of
Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines concerning their applicability to
the proposed Modified Project.
76
PLACEWORKS 3-1
Project Description
This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project as it compares to the
Approved Project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the project site, as well as the
proposed project features, approximate construction schedule, and required permits and approvals.
3.1 OVERVIEW AND SETTING
3.1.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The 8.1-acre project site evaluated in the Certified EIR is at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in the central
portion of Cupertino, in Santa Clara County. Cupertino is approximately 46 miles southeast of San
Francisco and is one of the cities that make up the area commonly known as Silicon Valley. Cupertino is
north of the city of Saratoga, east of unincorporated Santa Clara County, south of the city of Sunnyvale,
and west of the city of San José. Cupertino also shares a boundary with the city of Los Altos to the north.
Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 280 (I-280), State Route 85 (SR-85), Stevens
Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus service, and by Caltrain via the
Sunnyvale, Lawrence, and Santa Clara Caltrain Stations. The site is within the regional Plan Bay Area VTA
City Cores, Corridors, & Station Areas priority development area (PDA). The closest VTA bus stop (Line 81)
is at the Mary Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection, approximately 200 feet east of the site, and
bus stops are at De Anza College, approximately 1,900 feet to the east at the Stevens Creek
Boulevard/South Stelling Road intersection. The nearest Caltrain station to the project site is the
Sunnyvale station, which is approximately 4 miles to the north.
The project site is bounded by Mary Avenue to the north and east, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south,
and a SR-85 onramp to the west, off Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project site is surrounded by the
Glenbrook Apartments to the north, the Cupertino Senior Center and Cupertino Memorial Park to the
east, De Anza College to the south, and residential and industrial land uses to the west beyond SR-85. The
project site is directly accessible from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue.
3.1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Since the time of the Certified EIR and Approved Project, the existing development (Oaks Shopping
Center) on the project site has been demolished and each of the components of the Approved Project are
developed and occupied except for the proposed Building 1, which is the subject of the proposed
Modified Project. The eastern portion of the project site is dedicated to Building 1 and is currently graded
and is a vacant dirt lot (see Figure 3-1, Aerial View of Project Site). No other aspects of the site conditions,
including the General Plan Land Use designation or zoning district, have changed since the time of the
Certified EIR.
77
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2 DECEMBER 2024
Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Project Site
78
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-3
3.2 APPROVED PROJECT
The Approved Project includes rowhouses, townhomes, and two residential/retail buildings to be
developed across the entire 8.1-acre site. The development that was analyzed in the Certified EIR is
shown in Table 3-1, Development Analyzed in the Certified EIR.
TABLE 3-1 DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE CERTIFIED EIR
Building Type Buildings Units
Square Footage
Residential Garage Retail
Common
Open Space
Rowhouses 3 19 34,245 10,840
155 square feet
per unit
Townhomes 13 69 139,850 39,450
Residential-Retail Building 1 1 115 193,500 97,750 17,600
Residential-Retail Building 2 1 39 38,800 n/a 2,400
Total 18 242 406,395 148,040 20,000 37,601
Note: Square footages are rounded up and include residential and parking.
Source: C2K Architecture Inc. , November 2018.
As previously described in Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose, since the time of the Certified EIR,
revisions were made to the development shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-2, Changes Following Certification of
the EIR, shows the revisions made after EIR certification. As shown, the changes include an increase of 8
units in Building 1 and 9 units in Building 2 for a total increase of 17 units, which represents a 7 percent
increase in overall units.
TABLE 3-2 CHANGES FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
Building Type
Project Approved Under Certified EIR Approved Project
Units
Residential
(sf) Retail (sf) Units
Residential
(sf)
Retail
(sf) Difference
Rowhouses and
Townhomes 88 174,095 0 88 174,095 0 0
Building 1
115 + 35 non-
residential
memory units
193,500 17,600
123 + 35 non-
residential
memory units
199,800 17,60
0 +8 units
Building 2 39 38,800 2,400 48 47,760 2,400 +9 units
Total 242 406,395 20,000 259 421,655 20,00
0 +17 units
Notes: sf = square feet
Source: City of Cupertino, 2020.
79
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4 DECEMBER 2024
3.3 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
The proposed Modified Project would result in the following changes to Building 1:
Increase the senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units from 123 dwelling units;
Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet from 17,600 square feet;
Eliminate the two subterranean parking levels to be located below Building 1.
Table 3-3, Approved Project Compared to Proposed Modified Project, shows the modifications proposed
for Building 1. No changes are proposed to the landscaping, access and circulation, bird safe design, or
utilities connections. Thus, this Addendum includes an evaluation of the potential impacts associated with
the differences shown in Table 3-3. The proposed Modified Project is shown on Figure 3-2, Proposed Site
Plan for Building 1.
TABLE 3-3 APPROVED PROJECT COMPARED TO PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Building 1 Only Approved Project Proposed Modified Project
Difference between Approved and
Proposed Modified Project
Residential 123 senior living units
35 memory care units
136 senior living units
35 memory care units + 13 senior living units
Retail 17,600 sf 4,000 sf - 13,600 sf
Vehicular Parking Spaces 191 0 -191
Entire Project Site
Open Space 37,601 sf 47,780 sf +10,179 sf
Notes: sf = square feet
Source: Related Companies. (project applicant), April 2024
3.3.1 RESIDENTIAL
The 117,303-square-foot building would be six stories tall with an overall height of 78 feet, 8 inches. This
would be 8 feet and 8 inches taller than what was included in the Approved Project, but still within the
allowable height of 80 feet with the Density Bonus. There would be a total of 171 units (136 senior living
units and 35 memory care units). Of the 136 senior living units, 27 would be studios, 79 would be one
bedroom, and 30 would be two bedrooms, as shown in Table 3-4, Units in Building 1.
80
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-5
TABLE 3-4 UNITS IN BUILDING 1
Level Gross Area (SF)
Studio
530 SF
1 Bedroom
710 SF
2 Bedroom
1,110 SF
Memory
Care
Total
Units
6 27,562 0 11 5 0 16
5 34,979 9 21 7 0 37
4 34,709 9 21 7 0 37
3 34,716 9 21 7 0 37
2 35,742 0 5 4 35 44
1 27,728 0 0 0 0 0
Total 195,253 27 79 30 35 171
Notes: SF= square feet
Source: Related Companies. (project applicant), April 2024.
Building 1 would also include residential facilities including a memory care outdoor terrace on the second
level; communal terrace on the sixth level; and pool/wellness center/gym on the ground level, all for
resident use only; and a dining facility on the ground level, for use by residents and their guests only.
3.3.2 RETAIL
The proposed Modified Project includes modifications to the retail component on the ground level of
Building 1. Building 1 would have 4,000 square feet of retail space compared to the 17,600 square feet
under the Approved Project. There would be 2,400 square feet on the southwest corner of Building 1
along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 1,600 square feet would be on the southeast corner of Building 1 at
the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. At-grade parking for these retail uses would be
provided along Mary Avenue. There would be no subterranean parking garage as originally described
under the Approved Project.
3.3.3 VEHICULAR PARKING
The proposed Modified Project would not include the subterranean parking garage under Building 1 but
otherwise would not change access and circulation as is described under the Approved Project. All parking
would be provided at grade. Residents and visitors of Building 1 would be provided with valet parking and
staff parking would be coordinated off-site. Access to Building 1 would be from Mary Avenue to the north
and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south.
3.3.4 OPEN SPACE
Private open space areas would be provided for each residential unit either as a balcony or patio. Building
1 would include private balconies that range in size from 60 to 132 square feet per unit. Common open
space areas would be provided to residents of Building 1 throughout the project site, including the central
green space. The proposed Modified Project would include 47,789 square feet of common open space, an
increase of 10,188 square feet of total project site open space from the Approved Project.
81
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6 DECEMBER 2024
Figure 3-2 Proposed Site Plan for Building 1
82
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-7
3.3.5 CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed Modified Project would occur over an approximately 16-month period and
is anticipated to be completed by the year 2027. Because the project site is currently graded, no
demolition or haul of materials would occur.
3.3.6 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
The proposed Modified Project would add 13 additional units to Building 1 compared to the Approved
Project. Therefore, based on an average household size of 2.94 persons,2 the proposed Modified Project
would generate about 38 new residents. The proposed Modified Project would decrease retail space by
13,600 square feet compared to the Approved Project. Using the generation rates applied in the General
Plan EIR,3 of 450 square feet of commercial space per employee, the proposed Modified Project would
generate 30 fewer employees for the proposed retail uses.4 It is anticipated that future residents and
employees would be drawn largely from Cupertino and other communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
3.3.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Following the approval of this Addendum and the proposed Modified Project, the following discretionary
permits and approvals from the City would be required:
Development Permit
Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Use Permit
2 Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household
3 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, (December
2014) and approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final Addendum, State
Clearinghouse Number 2014032007 (October 2015).
4 17,600 square feet of retail divided by 450 square feet per employee equals 39 employees for the Approved Project. 4,000
square feet of retail divided by 450 square feet per employee equals 9 employees.
83
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 DECEMBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
84
PLACEWORKS 4-1
Environmental Analysis
As previously described in Chapter 2, Standard for Preparation of an Addendum, this Addendum has been
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 to determine whether implementation
of the proposed Modified Project would result in any new impacts or substantially more severe significant
environmental impacts than were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. As described in the Certified
EIR, due to the proposed project’s location in an urbanized setting and a qualified infill site in a Transit
Priority Area (TPA), the project would not have a significant effect on agriculture, forestry, mineral
resources, or aesthetics. It was determined through the preparation of an Initial Study that development
of the Approved Project would also not result in significant environmental impacts for the listed
environmental issues and these issues were not evaluated further in the Certified EIR. The following
provides an explanation of why the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or
substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts in these topics.
Energy. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would involve the same energy-conserving features
of the Approved Project, would be on the same site, and would have less energy demand by
eliminating the subterranean parking levels.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site
and general footprint as that of the Approved Project and associated impacts to groundwater
recharge would be similar under either scenario. The same regulatory setting as that of the Approved
Project applies to the proposed Modified Project and compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans identified in the
Certified EIR would ensure that water quality standards would not be violated. The proposed Modified
Project would be connected to the same municipal water supplies and would generate less water
demand due to the elimination of the subterranean parking component.
Land Use and Planning. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and
general footprint as Building 1 as that of the Approved Project and would include the same land uses.
The proposed Modified Project would remain consistent with existing land use and zoning and the
site’s Density Bonus pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus.
Therefore, the proposed Modified Project, same as the Approved Project, would not physically divide
an established community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Population and Housing. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and
same general footprint as the Approved Project and would result in about the same percentage of
population growth with 13 additional senior living units (38 additional residents).
Public Services. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site, include the
same land uses, and would generally generate the same population growth (38 additional residents
and 30 fewer employees) as the Approved Project.
85
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 DECEMBER 2024
Recreation. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site near existing parks
and provide the same facilities as the Approved Project, would roughly generate the same population
growth (38 additional residents and 30 fewer employees). Therefore, the proposed Modified Project
would create the need for new or improved recreational facilities, which could cause an
environmental impact.
Wildfire. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site as the Approved Project
and not in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones.
Accordingly, this Addendum only considers the extent to which the proposed modifications could result in
new or substantially more severe significant impacts; it does not reevaluate impacts that would remain
consistent with the analysis in the Certified EIR. The environmental topic areas analyzed in the Certified
EIR include:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Noise
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
The sections below provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project
and are organized to correspond with the standards of significance in the Certified EIR, consistent with
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines. Because the Initial Study determined
that construction and operation of the Approved Project would not result in significant environmental
impacts for some of the environmental checklist questions, the topics are presented as “Standards
Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study,” and “Standards Evaluated in the Certified
EIR.” Each section contains a summary of the findings of the evaluation, organized into the following
columns:
Level of Impact in the Certified EIR presents the level of significance identified for the project analyzed
in the Certified EIR, using the following acronyms:
NI = No Impact. For these topics, there is no adverse effect on the environment.
LTS = Less than Significant. These effects are noticeable but do not exceed established or defined
thresholds, and no mitigation is required.
LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation. For these circumstances, an established or defined
threshold would be exceeded, and a significant impact would occur; mitigation is required and
would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project presents the level of significance identified
for the proposed Modified Project based on the evaluation in this Addendum, using the following
categories:
New Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Modified Project would have a noticeable but
less-than-significant effect on the environment that was not identified in the Certified EIR.
Same Impact as Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project would create the same level of
impact identified in the Certified EIR.
86
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3
Less Impact than in Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project would create a noticeable effect
on the environment, with a lesser level of impact than was identified in the Certified EIR.
Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project. The proposed Modified Project would not
have the potential to create an impact on an environmental topic that was evaluated in the
Certified EIR.
4.1 AIR QUALITY
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? LTS X
AQ-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standards?
LTS/M X
AQ-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? LTS X
AQ-4: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
The topic of other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial amount of
people has been screened out from further evaluation in this Addendum because the type of facilities
that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities,
landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g.,
87
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-4 DECEMBER 2024
auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and
food manufacturing facilities. Residential and retail uses are not associated with foul odors that constitute
a public nuisance. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and
this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
AQ-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to conflicting with or
obstructing the applicable air quality plan (2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean
Air Plan) based on consistency with the General Plan’s land use designation and zoning district for the site,
as well as the location within a PDA and a TPA . The proposed Modified Project would not change the
location, nor the General Plan land use designation and zoning district of the project site. Additionally, the
Approved Project was not considered a regionally significant project that would affect regional vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) and warrant intergovernmental review by Association Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), nor would it exceed the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) emissions thresholds. The proposed Modified Project, with minor
changes to the residential units and nonresidential space, is not significant enough to change these
findings. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in
the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicting with or obstructing
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
AQ-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation during the construction
phase and less than significant during operation for impacts associated with an increase in criteria
pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on site would vary daily as
construction activity levels change. The site has already been graded in preparation for construction of the
Approved Project, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified
Project, so the impact due to fugitive dust would be lessened for the remainder of the construction
activities. The Approved Project would be required to comply with the BAAQMD Basic Construction
Measures as described in Mitigation Measure AQ-2 in the Certified EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has
been replaced by compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1), which requires the project applicant to
implement the BAAQMD Basic Control Measures included in the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive dust (i.e.,
particulate matter [PM2.5 and PM10]) during demolition, ground-disturbing activities, and/or construction.
The project applicant shall include these measures in the applicable construction documents, prior to
issuance of the first permit. As a result, the proposed Modified Project must control fugitive dust during
construction in accordance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1) and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 as presented
in the Certified EIR is no longer warranted. BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust
emissions from construction to be less than significant with implementation of BAAQMD’s best
management practices. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or
substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to construction-
related fugitive dust.
Operational emissions for residential developments are typically generated from mobile sources (burning
of fossil fuels in cars); energy sources (cooling, heating, and cooking); and area sources (landscape
88
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-5
equipment and household products). The Certified EIR found that none of the emission sources analyzed
would create pollutant levels exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds under the Approved Project. The
proposed Modified Project would include the same types of uses as the Approved Project and would
eliminate the subterranean parking for residents and guests of Building 1. The residents and visitors would
rely on valet parking. This would decrease the mobile source emissions estimated under the Approved
Project. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the
proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project
(see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum).5 The number of residential units in Building 1
under the proposed Modified Project would increase by 8 percent, though retail space would decrease by
30 percent. Overall, this would decrease the energy source and area source emissions under the
proposed Modified Project. As mobile source emissions would generate the majority of increases in long-
term criteria air pollutants, the decrease in daily vehicle trips due to the loss of parking would result in a
decrease in operation-related emissions as well. As a result, like the Approved Project, the proposed
Modified Project would not exceed the BAAQMD regional significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed
Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the operational
air quality impacts identified in the Certified EIR.
AQ-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact associated with construction- and
operational-related health risks (i.e., exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations). Construction-related activities of the Approved Project would result in emissions of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation
(e.g., demolition, clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and
other miscellaneous activities. The Certified EIR found that the maximum concentration of PM2.5 during
construction of the Approved Project was 0.011 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), which is below the
BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project
construction was 2.23 per million based on an annual PM10 concentration of 0.012 μg/m3. Non-cancer
hazards for DPM was below the BAAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001
and an acute hazard index of 0.01. Construction of the proposed Modified Project would reduce the
amount of DPM emissions, since site grading is complete and the subterranean parking garage is not
included in the proposed Modified Project. The Certified EIR found that operation of the Approved Project
would not be a source of toxic air contaminants. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not
result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR
related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
AQ-4: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with air quality
under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project is all development within
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants and basin-
wide projections of emissions. There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting and the
proposed Modified Project would result in less development. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in
the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
5 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and
Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
89
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-6 DECEMBER 2024
4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community type. NI X
Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.
LTS X
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their
wildlife corridors, or nursery sites.
LTS X
Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan.
NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal
population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate,
sensitive or special-status species.
LTS/M X
BIO-2: Conflict with any local ordinances or policies
protecting biological resources. LTS/M X
BIO-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
90
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-7
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
The topics regarding sensitive habitat, wetlands, migratory movement, and an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan have been screened out from further evaluation since the project site and surrounding
area are urbanized and support roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, and ornamental
landscaping. The project site is bound by roadways on all sides and property beyond the roadways is
developed with residential, senior services, and educational land uses. Thus, there is no riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community type or State or federally protected wetlands on the project site. The
site contains no creeks or aquatic habitat that would support fish, and development would not interfere
substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurseries.
No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
conservation plan includes the project site. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of
significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
BIO-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to having a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal
population, or essential habitat, defined candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Though there are
no known occurrences of special-status plant or animal species and no suitable habitat for such species on
the project site, there is a possibility that birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
California Fish and Game Code could nest in trees and other landscaping near the project site that could
be disturbed during construction of Building 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the
Certified EIR would require preconstruction surveys and protective measures for active nests. Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), which requires the project applicant
to avoid nesting birds during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure
avoidance and CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2), which requires the project applicant to avoid special-status
roosting bats during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance.
Additionally, the Approved Project included designs to minimize the risk of bird collisions through the use
of bird-safe design for window treatments, rooftop equipment, and night-time lighting. The applicant has
committed to implementing bird-safe design measures in the new buildings, which would further address
the low risk of collision.
Further, bat species found in the Cupertino vicinity may forage and occasionally roost in the site vicinity,
but suitable habitat conditions for maternity roots is absent from the project site. The potential for any
special-status bat species to be present on the site is considered highly remote, given the urbanization of
the site vicinity and intensity of human activity, which typically discourages possible occupation by special-
status bats.
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would adhere to CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1),
which outlines steps to avoid disturbance or removal of bird nests protected under the federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code and special-status bats. Further, the project site would
91
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-8 DECEMBER 2024
remain the same, is already graded, and would have similar construction activities as under the Approved
Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in
the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to having a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential
habitat, defined candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.
BIO-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to local
ordinances and policies protecting biological resources. The Approved Project would not conflict with any
relevant goals and policies in the General Plan related to the protection of biological resources. CMC
Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Ordinance, provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and
maintenance of trees of certain species and sizes. The Certified EIR described 14 trees that were proposed
for removal under the Approved Project that qualified as Specimen trees pursuant to the Protected Trees
Ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the Certified EIR would ensure the project
complies with the City of Cupertino’s Protected Trees Ordinance.
The proposed Modified Project would also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure BIO-2; however,
since the site is already graded, the removal of these required trees has already occurred. Thus, the
proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of
the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to local ordinances and policies protecting biological
resources.
BIO-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated
with biological resources under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project
considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands. Cumulative development projects
within the city are in urbanized areas of the city and contain limited biological resource value.
Redevelopment and infill projects, including those in built-out urban areas, would remove vegetation that
could be used for nesting by birds protected under various laws and would remove buildings and trees
that could be used for roosting by sensitive bat species. However, these development projects would be
required to follow applicable local and State regulations and impacts to nesting birds and the removal of
protected trees, and for those in Cupertino, would be required to comply with CMC Section
17.04.050(D)(1) and CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2). There have not been significant changes in cumulative
setting since the certification of the Certified EIR and the proposed Modified Project would result in less
development on the same project site. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related
to cumulative impacts.
92
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-9
4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified
Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.
LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
CULT-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
LTS/M X
CULT-2: Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? LTS X
CULT-3: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American Tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section
5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead
agency shall consider the significance to a California
Native American tribe.
LTS/M X
CULT-4: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
93
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-10 DECEMBER 2024
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
The topic regarding historic resources has been screened out from further evaluation since there are no
local, State, or federally recognized historic properties on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. The
historical building (Le Petit Trianon) at 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard is within 1 mile of the project site;
however, construction of the Approved Project would not affect this structure. Accordingly, no further
analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this
Addendum.
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
CULT-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to
archaeological resources. The Certified EIR referenced the General Plan EIR and stated that the cultural
resources study did not identify any known archaeological deposits on the project site.6 The project site
and the surrounding area is already developed, though it could still contain subsurface archaeological
deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure CULT-1 in the Certified EIR would provide protection protocols should prehistoric or
historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure CULT-
1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1), Protect Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural
Resources, which contains cultural resources permit requirements that are necessary to protect
archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources. Same as Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the CMC
requirements include providing written verification to the City that contractors and construction crews
have been notified of basic archaeological site indicators, the potential for discovery of archaeological
resources, laws pertaining to these resources, and procedures for protecting cultural and tribal cultural
resources.
Since the time of the Certified EIR, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded and
most of the construction is complete. The discovery of archaeological resources during ground
disturbance is less likely to occur under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance
would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and
the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project. Further, the
proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) (i.e.,
Mitigation Measure CULT-1), which outlines what to do should an archaeology resource be discovered.
Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the
magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to archaeological resources.
CULT-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to disturbing human
remains. The Certified EIR found that there are no known human remains on the project site; however,
the potential to unearth unknown remains during ground-disturbing activities associated with the
construction of the proposed project could occur. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of
6 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources.
94
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-11
human remains. As previously described, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded
and most of the construction is complete with the exception of Building 1. The discovery of human
remains during ground disturbance is less likely to occur at this remaining location under the proposed
Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified
Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed
from the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new
impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect
to disturbing human remains.
CULT-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to tribal
cultural resources. As described under Impact CULT-1 and Impact CULT-2, no known archaeological
resources, ethnographic sites, or Native American remains are located on the project site; however, the
project site could contain undiscovered subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native
American prehistoric archaeological materials. Compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) would
provide protection protocols should resources with traditional or cultural significance to Native American
or other descendant communities cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance. As
previously described, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded, and most of the
construction is complete with the exception of Building 1. The discovery of tribal cultural resources during
ground disturbance is less likely to occur under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground
disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not
changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project.
Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the
magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to tribal cultural resources.
CULT-4: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with cultural and
tribal cultural resources under the Approved Project. Impacts to cultural resources tend to be site specific
and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The significance of the impacts would depend largely on what, if
any, cultural resources occur on or near the sites of related projects that are developed in the cumulative
setting. Through compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) (i.e., Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and
CULT-3), the Approved Project would not be cumulatively considerable. There have not been significant
changes to the project site or cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less
ground disturbance and less development than evaluated in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project.
Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the
magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
95
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-12 DECEMBER 2024
4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault.
Strong seismic ground shaking.
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards.
NI X
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. LTS X
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
LTS X
Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
LTS X
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater.
NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GEO-1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature.
LTS/M X
GEO-2: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
96
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-13
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
The topics regarding risk of loss, injury, or death involving ground shaking and liquefaction, substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil, unstable soil, expansive soil, and alternative wastewater disposal systems have
been screened out from further evaluation because development on the project site is subject to
compliance with State and City building requirements and CMC Section 16.08.110, which requires the
preparation and submittal of Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. Further, the project site is not in
a seismically induced liquefaction hazard zone and development of the Approved Project would not
require the construction or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, no
further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed
further in this Addendum.
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GEO-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to directly or
indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The certified EIR
found that the geology and soils on the project site are common throughout the city and region and are
not considered to be unique. Further, no paleontological resources have been identified within the project
site. However, ground-disturbing construction associated with development of the Approved Project,
specifically the excavation of the subterranean parking facilities, could cause damage to, or destruction of,
unique paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would protect
paleontological resources if they are discovered during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure GEO-1
has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(H), Paleontological Resources Permit Requirements, which
provides protocols to protect paleontological resources during construction that the project applicant
must adhere to in the event that there is a find. The proposed Modified Project would remove the
subterranean parking garage from the project, thus reducing ground-disturbing activities and lessening
the likelihood that paleontological resources are discovered during construction of Building 1. Further,
since the time of the Certified EIR, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded, and
most of the construction is complete. The proposed Modified Project would require minimal ground
disturbance, and the project site location has not changed. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would
not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the
Certified EIR with respect to paleontological resources.
GEO-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated
with geology and soils under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project
considers the buildout of the city and the region. Impacts to paleontological resources tend to be site
specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis and CMC Section 17.04.050(H) would be adhered to.
There have not been significant changes to the project site or cumulative setting and the proposed
Modified Project would result in less ground disturbance and less development than evaluated in the
Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial
increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
97
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-14 DECEMBER 2024
4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
LTS X
GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
LTS X
GHG-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
Discussion
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
GHG-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to generating greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. Construction of the Approved Project would result in direct emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) from the operation of construction equipment and
the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site. The Certified EIR found
that emissions from the Approved Project would be 58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e) per year and would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold.
Construction associated with the proposed Modified Project would use a similar type of construction
equipment and transport of materials. The modifications to Building 1 would not alter the overall GHG
emissions from construction on the project site, and the subterranean parking garage would not be
included in the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would result in less
development and less construction emissions.
98
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-15
Operational GHG emissions of the Approved Project would result from direct emissions such as project-
generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment,
and would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of
the project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the emissions
associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air
conditioning or refrigerators. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would generate 1,843
MTCO2e per year and the previous 71,250-square-foot shopping center on the project site generated
1,484 MTCO2e per year. The Approved Project’s emissions would represent a net increase in GHG
emissions of 359 MTCO2e per year that would not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening threshold. The
proposed Modified Project would increase residential units in Building 1 by 8 percent, decrease retail
space by 30 percent, and eliminate the subterranean parking garage. Based on a trip generation study
conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839
fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this
Addendum).7 As a result, there would be a decrease in GHG emissions compared to the Approved Project
and therefore would not increase emissions beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Thus, the
proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of
the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to generating GHG emissions.
GHG-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with consistency with California Air
Resources Board’s (CARB’s ) 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, and the Cupertino Climate
Action Plan (CAP). The Approved Project would be required to achieve the latest Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, comply with CMC Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, and would be required to build to
LEED or an alternative reference standard and would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan.
Further, because the Approved Project is an infill residential mixed-use development it would be
consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area. Lastly, as an infill redevelopment priority housing
development on a designated PDA and TPA, the Approved Project would be consistent with the overall
intent of the CAP to support reductions in GHG emissions, and the Approved Project would not conflict
with any goals or measures to reduce GHG emissions in the CAP.
The proposed Modified Project would result in less development and continue to be consistent with
CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) as an
infill development project in a PDA and TPA. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a
new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with
respect to consistency with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs.
GHG-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with GHG
emissions under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project is not confined to
a particular air basin since GHG emissions are dispersed worldwide. The impact of the Approved Project is
addressed in Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2. There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting
and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development. Therefore, the proposed Modified
7 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20. Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and
Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
99
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-16 DECEMBER 2024
Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts
identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
LTS X
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
NI X
For a project within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, result in a safety
hazard for people living or working in the project area.
NI X
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
LTS X
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires.
NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
LTS X
HAZ-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
LTS X
HAZ-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation
100
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-17
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
The topic regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment has been screened out from
further evaluation since the Approved Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential development, is
not a type of project that would create a hazardous materials threat to the users of the site or the
surrounding land uses. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set
forth by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division would be required through the
duration of the construction of the Approved Project. The topics regarding the location of the site on a
hazardous materials site and within an airport land use plan have also been screened out from further
evaluation since the Approved Project is not on a hazardous materials site or in an airport land use plan.
The Approved Project would not block roads and would not impede emergency access to surrounding
properties or neighborhoods nor is it in a very high fire hazard severity zone in the Local Responsibility
Areas of Cupertino or in the General Plan designated Wildland-Urban Interface Area. Thus, the topics
regarding interfering with an emergency response plan or risk involving wildland fires have been screened
out. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues
are not discussed further in this Addendum.
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
HAZ-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to creating a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials during construction. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous
materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws
and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would
ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner to
minimize the potential for safety impacts. Further, none of the soils at the project site that were proposed
to be excavated for off-site disposal contain elevated concentrations exceeding federal or State hazardous
waste levels. Like the Approved Project, construction under the proposed Modified Project would be
required to conform to existing laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of
construction-related hazardous materials. Further, less soil would be exported from the project site since
the proposed Modified Project no longer includes the subterranean parking garage. Therefore, the
proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the
impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to creating a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
HAZ-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to hazardous emissions
within 0.25 miles of a school. De Anza College is directly south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, within 140 feet
of the project site. In addition, one preschool is within 0.25 miles of the project site. The Certified EIR
described that since Impacts HAZ-1 and AQ-3 were both less than significant, there would be no
hazardous emissions released near the schools under the Approved Project.
101
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-18 DECEMBER 2024
The proposed Modified Project would be on the same project site and construction of the proposed
Modified Project would not greatly alter construction emissions and would be required to conform to
existing laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related
hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or
substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to emitting
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
HAZ-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with hazards and
hazardous materials under the Approved Project. Under the Approved Project, the excavation, hauling,
and disposal of potentially contaminated soils would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in
the city. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include similar construction
activities and materials. Thus, the excavation, hauling, and disposal of potentially contaminated soils
under the proposed Modified Project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the city.
Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the
magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
4.7 NOISE
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
NI X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
NOISE-1: Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other
applicable local, State, or federal standards.
LTS/M X
NOISE-2: Generation of excessive groundborne noise
levels. LTS X
NOISE-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation
102
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-19
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
The topic regarding the location of the project site near an airport has been screened out from further
evaluation since the proposed project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an
airport. The nearest public airports are San José International Airport, approximately 7 miles to the
northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.5 miles to the northwest. Accordingly, no further
analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this
Addendum.
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
NOISE-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation impact with respect to
increasing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Sensitive receptors near the project site
include residences approximately 90 feet north of the site, the Cupertino Senior Center approximately 80
feet east of the site, and De Anza College approximately 140 feet south of the site, across Stevens Creek
Boulevard. The Certified EIR found that during construction of the Approved Project, the highest noise
levels would occur during the grading and demolition phases and would be 75.9 A-weighted decibels
(dBA) equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) during the grading phase and 79.5 dBA Lmax during the
demolition phase at the nearest receptor. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 in the
Certified EIR would ensure construction noise levels do not exceed the City’s standard of 80 dBA. This
includes requiring appropriate work timing, notifications, and noise-reducing measures. Mitigation
Measure NOISE-1 has been replaced with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2), Manage Noise During
Construction, which requires the applicant and contractor to submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to
the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the first permit. The
Construction Noise Control Plan would demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits
based on the type of construction equipment, distance of construction activities from sensitive receptors,
site terrain, and other project features.
Construction of the proposed Modified Project would likely use the same equipment and type of
construction at the same location. Therefore, noise generated by construction of the proposed Modified
Project would likely be the same as the Approved Project; however, the grading and demolition have
already been completed and noise from those activities would be less for the proposed Modified Project.
Further, the subterranean parking garage is not included in the proposed Modified Project, so no
excavation and soil haul would be required. Thus, impacts would be less than evaluated in the Certified
EIR with compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1).
Operational noise issues evaluated in the Certified EIR include vehicle traffic noise as well as stationary
source noise (e.g., mechanical equipment, on-site trucks/loading docks). The Certified EIR found that the
new trips from the Approved Project would not have a significant impact on traffic noise levels as the
increase would be less than 3 dBA. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation
103
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-20 DECEMBER 2024
Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed
Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum).8 Stationary noise from the
Approved Project would be similar to typical residential, mixed-use development with most noise
occurring in the daytime. Noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC ) units, landscaping
maintenance, parking, and truck deliveries would be likely but would not create greater noise levels than
currently exist in the vicinity.
The proposed Modified Project would include 13 more senior living units, 13,600 square feet less
commercial space resulting in 30 fewer employees, and elimination of the subterranean parking garage,
which would reduce traffic noise when compared to the Approved Project. Further, operation of the
proposed Modified Project would include similar noise-generating activities, typical of residential
development as evaluated in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result
in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant
impact.
NOISE-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to generating excessive
groundborne noise levels. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Approved Project
would be primarily associated with construction-related activities such as jackhammering and using
bulldozers or large trucks. Pile drivers were not included for construction under the Approved Project. The
nearest off-site sensitive receptors would be the building 82 feet to the north. Based on typical vibration
levels, ground vibration generated by other heavy-duty equipment could reach levels of 0.035 inches per
second (in/sec) Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at 82 feet. The use of construction equipment would not
result in a groundborne vibration velocity level above the established threshold of 0.20 in/sec PPV.
Further, operation of the Approved Project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because
there are no notable sources of vibrational energy associated with the Approved Project, such as heavy
industrial machinery, railroad, or subway operations.
Construction of the proposed Modified Project would use the same construction equipment as the
Approved Project. Additionally, without the inclusion of the subterranean parking garage, there would be
less groundborne vibration during project construction. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would
not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified
significant impact.
NOISE-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated
with noise under the Approved Project. At the time of the Certified EIR, the nearest cumulative project
was the Loc-N-Stor project at 10655 Mary Avenue about 0.5 miles to the north. This project was under
preliminary review and no construction timeline had been established. With compliance with CMC
Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1), construction noise levels would not exceed 80
dBA for the surrounding off-site sensitive receptors.
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include similar construction activities and
materials and would implement CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1). Since
certification of the Certified EIR, the Loc-N-Stor project still has not begun construction. Even if the Loc-N-
8 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and
Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
104
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-21
Stor project were to be constructed at a similar time as the proposed Modified Project, it would be
considered too far away to cause a cumulative construction noise impact. Therefore, the proposed
Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the
impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts.
4.8 TRANSPORTATION
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
LTS X
Result in inadequate emergency access. LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
TRANS-1: Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
LTS X
TRANS-2: Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). LTS X
TRANS-3: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
LTS X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
The topics regarding an increase in road hazards or inadequate emergency access have been screened out
from further evaluation since the Approved Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential
development, would not modify any design features to a public road or introduce a potentially unsafe
feature that would increase hazards and access for emergency vehicles would be provided from access
points off Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The circulation pattern on the project site would
105
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-22 DECEMBER 2024
allow emergency vehicles full access to all internal streets. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these
standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum.
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
TRANS-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with a
program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would generate 3 fewer (or
negative 3) inbound trips and 50 new outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 4 new inbound and 26
fewer (or negative 26) outbound trips during the PM peak hour. In regard to pedestrian facilities, the
Approved Project would be expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the existing sidewalks
and crosswalks in the area by 20 percent, so the Approved Project would include an internal sidewalk and
bicycle network, in addition to sidewalk modifications along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue.
Thus, the Approved Project would not eliminate or impede any existing pedestrian facilities, nor would it
conflict with any of the goals and policies in the City’s Pedestrian Plan. The Approved Project would also
install a Class IV separated bikeway on the portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard and a Class I bike path on
the western portion of the project site to connect Stevens Creek Boulevard to Mary Avenue. Further, the
Approved Project would include a total of 117 bicycle parking spaces and would be consistent with the
City’s bike plan. Lastly, the Approved Project would also install a bus stop on the section of Stevens Creek
Boulevard west of Mary Avenue and east of the SR-85 northbound ramp and the new transit trips
generated by the Approved Project are not expected to create a significant demand in excess of the
capacity of the transit service that is currently provided.
The proposed Modified Project only includes modifications to Building 1 and would not impact the
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities included under the Approved Project. The subterranean parking
garage would not be included in the proposed Modified Project and parking for residents and visitors of
Building 1 would be off-site. With respect to generated trips, based on a trip generation study conducted
by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily
trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum). 9
As described in Appendix A, the increase in residential units under the proposed Modified Project would
increase trip generation for the residential portion by 32 daily trips and the reduction in retail in Building 1
would reduce trip generation by 871 daily trips. Overall, there would be less trips generated by the
proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the
Certified EIR related to conflicts with policies addressing the circulation network.
TRANS-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The Approved Project is a residential mixed-use development on an infill
site recognized as a PDA and TPA by the regional Plan Bay Area. The Certified EIR found that the Approved
Project would produce an approximate annual VMT of 2,662,683 miles, or a daily VMT of 7,295 miles. This
would be a reduction of approximately 120,064 miles annually, or 329 miles daily from existing conditions
at the time of the Certified EIR.
9 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and
Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
106
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-23
As described in Impact TRANS-1, the proposed Modified Project would increase residential units by 8
percent and decrease retail space by 30 percent. This would generate 839 fewer trips under the proposed
Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1),
projects within 0.25 miles of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality
transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. On February
16, 2021, the City adopted CMC Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts Under the California
Environmental Quality Act, which provides screening criteria and VMT thresholds for land-use
development projects, transportation projects, and other projects pursuant to CEQA. As previously
described, the location of the project site meets this criterion. Accordingly, no transportation impacts
related to VMT from the proposed Modified Project are presumed. Therefore, the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in
the Certified EIR related to conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
TRANS-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with
transportation under the Approved Project. Impact TRANS-1 and Impact TRANS-2 in the Certified EIR
addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the city and its surroundings; accordingly,
cumulative impacts would be the same as those discussed previously and no additional analysis is
warranted.
Like the Certified EIR, Impact TRANS-1 and Impact TRANS-2 address cumulative impacts to the
transportation network in the city and its surroundings under the proposed Modified Project. Fewer trips
would be generated under the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project and the
proposed Modified Project does not include any changes to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities
described in the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new
impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to
cumulative impacts.
107
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-24 DECEMBER 2024
4.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Proposed Modified Project:
Level of
Impact in
the Certified
EIR
Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Modified Project
New
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact
Same
Impact as
Certified
EIR
Less
Impact
Than
Certified
EIR
Topic Not
Applicable to
the Proposed
Modified
Project
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
Require or result in the construction of new water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
LTS X
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
LTS X
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals.
LTS X
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. LTS X
Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR
UTIL-1: Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.
LTS/M X
UTIL-2: In combination with past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects, result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater
treatment.
LTS/M X
Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation
Summary of Analysis
No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR.
Discussion
Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study
The topics regarding the construction of new water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities; insufficient water supplies; and generating
solid waste have been screened out from further evaluation. The Approved Project would connect to
existing City infrastructure and demand would not exceed existing capacity of the infrastructure. Further,
the General Plan EIR considered development in the city through the 2040 buildout horizon and found
108
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-25
that the buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies or other utilities.10
Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are
not discussed further in this Addendum. The topic regarding regulations related to solid waste has also
been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project would be required to follow the
City’s CAP and Zero Waste Policy regarding operational waste and CMC Chapter 16.7 regarding
construction waste. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and
this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum.
Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR
UTIL-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to
wastewater capacity. Wastewater would be treated at the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant (SJ/SCWPCP). The General Plan EIR found that the estimated wastewater generation from the
Approved Project and from other potential projects, as established by the General Plan and other
approved projects, is the total capacity needed to serve the General Plan buildout.11 Thus,
implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 of the Certified EIR would ensure that no building permits
shall be issued by the City for the Approved Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet
weather flow capacity of 13.8 million gallons per day (mgd) through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system
and would require the applicant to demonstrate that the Approved Project would not exceed the peak
wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 has been
replaced by CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, which includes Utilities
and Service Systems Permit Requirements in Section 17.04.050(I) to manage wastewater inflow and
infiltration to the sewer system. The proposed Modified Project would increase the residential units of
Building 1 by 8 percent but decrease the retail space by 30 percent. Thus, there would a decrease in
overall wastewater created by the proposed Modified Project. Further, the proposed Modified Project
would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(I) (i.e., Mitigation Measure UTIL-1), which
would ensure that modifications to Building 1 would not exceed the permitted peak wet weather flow
capacity through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Accordingly, the proposed Modified Project would
not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified
EIR related to wastewater treatment provider capacity.
UTIL-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with utilities and
service systems with respect to wastewater treatment under the Approved Project. Impact UTIL-1 in the
Certified EIR addresses cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment since it considers the impacts of the
proposed project in conjunction with the citywide wastewater generation and demand and all
development in Cupertino is bound to the same treatment allocation contractual limits and contributes to
demand on the SJ/SCWPCP wastewater treatment capacity.
Like the Certified EIR, Impact UTIL-1 addresses cumulative impacts to wastewater generation and
treatment capacity. Further, less wastewater would be created with the decrease in retail space under the
proposed Modified Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or
a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative
impacts.
10 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems.
11 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems.
109
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-26 DECEMBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
110
PLACEWORKS 5-1
Conclusion
As summarized in the following sections and for the reasons described in Chapter 4, Environmental
Analysis, the City has concluded that the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new
significant impacts not previously identified in the Certified EIR; nor would it result in a substantial
increase in the severity of any significant environmental impact previously identified in the Certified EIR.
For these reasons, a subsequent EIR is not required, and an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the
appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed Modified Project.
5.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT
The proposed Modified Project is not a substantial change to the Certified EIR because it is on the same
project site as the Approved Project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the
subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Certified EIR and
most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Certified EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial
changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects.
5.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES
As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the proposed Modified Project
would not result in new significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR,
would not substantially increase the severity of significant environmental effects identified in the Certified
EIR, and thus would not require major revisions to the Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project,
therefore, is not substantial and does not require major revisions to the Certified EIR or preparation of a
subsequent EIR. In addition, beyond the site preparations and construction to the rest of the Approved
Project, the physical conditions of the project site and vicinity have not changed substantially since the
certification of the Certified EIR.
5.3 NEW INFORMATION
There has been no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known when the Certified EIR was certified in 2020, that shows that the proposed Modified Project
would be expected to result in: (1) new significant environmental effects not identified in the Certified EIR;
(2) substantially more severe environmental effects than shown in the Certified EIR; (3) mitigation
measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible that would in fact be feasible and would
111
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CONCLUSION
5-2 DECEMBER 2024
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to
adopt the mitigation or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably
different from those identified in the Certified EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
112
PLACEWORKS 6-1
List of Preparers
City of Cupertino
Gian Martire .................................................................................. Senior Planner, Community Development
PlaceWorks
Terri McCracken ................................................................................................. Principal, Principal-in-Charge
Rachel Goren ........................................................................................................ Associate, Project Manager
Christopher Giamarino ................................................................. Associate, Geographic Information System
Grant Reddy ....................................................................................................................... Graphics Specialist
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Gary Black ......................................................................................................................................... President
Jonathan Chang ................................................................................................................................. Engineer
113
THE WESTPORT MIXED-USE PROJECT EIR ADDENDUM NUMBER 1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LIST OF PREPARERS
6-2 DECEMBER 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
114
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX A
T RI P G E N ER A T I O N S T U D Y
115
........................................................................................................................
116
Memorandum
Date: September 20, 2024
To: Ms. Rachel Goren, PlaceWorks
From: Gary Black, Jonathan Chang
Subject: Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for
the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a trip generation study for the proposed
assisted living and retail development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California.
The proposed project consists of 136 units for assisted living and 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail
space. This newly proposed plan will replace a previously approved project with 124 units for
assisted living and 20,000 s.f. of retail space.
Project Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced
by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the manual entitled Trip Generation, 11th
Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE). The magnitude of traffic added
to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip
generation rates by the size of the development. The ITE trip generation rates for Assisted Living
(Land Use 254) and Strip Retail Plaza (Land Use 822) were used for this study.
As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is estimated to generate 839 fewer daily vehicle trips
than the previously approved project, with 22 fewer trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 52
fewer trips during the PM peak hour. In conclusion, the new proposed project would generate fewer
trips than the previously approved project, so there is no need for additional traffic analysis.
Table 1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Rate Trips Rate In %In Out Total Rate In %In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Assisted Living1 136.0 d.u.2.60 354 0.18 60%14 10 24 0.24 39%13 20 33
Retail2 4.0 ksf 54.45 218 2.36 60%5 4 9 6.59 50%13 13 26
Approved Uses
Assisted Living1 124 d.u.2.60 (322)0.18 60%(13)(9)(22)0.24 39%(12)(18)(30)
Retail2 20 ksf 54.45 (1,089)2.36 60%(28)(19)(47)6.59 50%(66)(66)(132)
Net Project Trips -839 -22 -14 -36 -52 -51 -103
d.u. = dwelling unit
ksf = 1,000 square feet
1
2
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
Notes:
Assisted Living (Land Use 254) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021.
Strip Retail Plaza (Land Use 822) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021.
117
118
PROPERTY LINE
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
MARY AVER
O
W
H
O
U
S
E
R
O
W
H
O
U
S
E
R
O
W
H
O
U
S
E
TOWNHOUSE
TO
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE
TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE
TOWNHOUSETOWNHOUSETOWNHOUSE
TO
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
TO
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
TO
W
N
H
O
U
S
E
EASEMENT
EASEMENT
PROPERTY LINE
BLDG 2: BMR
SENIOR LIVING /
RETAIL
BLDG 1: SENIOR LIVING /
RETAIL
BMR SENIOR
LIVING
BMR
SENIOR
LIVING
LOBBY /
OFFICE /
MAIL
LOADING /
TRASH
PARKING
GARAGE
LOBBY
LOBBY LOUNGE
CENTRAL GREEN
CENTRAL GREEN
SITE AREA LEGEND:
BUILDING COVERAGE AREA = 111,997 SF
111,997 / 343,958 = 32.56% NET SITE
HARDSCAPE AREA = 136,582 SF
136,582 / 343,958 = 39.70% NET SITE
LANDSCAPE AREA = 95,378 SF
95,378 / 343,958 = 27.73% NET SITE
NET SITE AREA = 343,958 SF (7.9 Acres)
GROSS AREA RETAIL = 20,000 SF
SURFACE PARKING AREA = 15,577 SF
GROSS SITE AREA = 352,836 SF (8.1 Acres) RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING LOBBIES/ SUPPORT SPACE
RETAIL
6
6
6 6
6
BLDG 1: SENIOR
LIVING / RETAIL
17,405 SF
10,000 SF
92,278 SF
112,392 SF
112,392 / 343,958 = 32.67% NET SITE
137,598 SF
137,598 / 343,958 = 40.00% NET SITE
92,278 / 343,958 = 26.82% NET SITE
7
7
7
On the entitled set this sheet is G206A.
All three Westport parcel site areas were
represented together. This updated sheet reflects
the changes proposed for Building 1 site only. Any
updates from other parcels (Building 2, Townhomes)
are not reflected here.
09.28.2021
137,078
137,078
CENTRAL GREEN
BLDG 1: SENIOR
LIVING / RETAIL
17,600
SITE AREA LEGEND:
BUILDING COVERAGE AREA = 111,997 SF
111,997 / 343,958 = 32.56% NET SITE
HARDSCAPE AREA = 136,582 SF
136,582 / 343,958 = 39.70% NET SITE
LANDSCAPE AREA = 95,378 SF
95,378 / 343,958 = 27.73% NET SITE
NET SITE AREA = 343,958 SF (7.9 Acres)
GROSS AREA RETAIL = 20,000 SF
SURFACE PARKING AREA = 15,577 SF
GROSS SITE AREA = 352,836 SF (8.1 Acres) RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING LOBBIES/ SUPPORT SPACE
RETAIL
6
17,405 SF
10,000 SF
92,278 SF
112,392 SF
112,392 / 343,958 = 32.67% NET SITE
137,598 SF
137,598 / 343,958 = 40.00% NET SITE
92,278 / 343,958 = 26.82% NET SITE
On the entitled set this sheet is G206A.
All three Westport parcel site areas were
represented together. This updated sheet reflects
the changes proposed for Building 1 site only. Any
updates from other parcels (Building 2, Townhomes)
are not reflected here.
11.0'
D
209GGREASETALLOW BIN
A-A
-SIM
APOLLO MODEL A1000 STATIONARYHAND-FED COMPACTOR (2) TOTAL
1/8" THICK STEEL DIAMONDTREAD BACKING, TYPSEE NOTE 4120V 15A SERVICEOUTLET, SEE NOTE 10
HB
1HR FIRE-RATED WALL BY OTHERSTYP (S.A.D.) SEE NOTE 3
PP
4CY FLCOMPACTOR
CONTAINERCOMBINED WASTE
PP
4CY FLCOMPACTOR
CONTAINERCOMBINED RECYCLING
ELEC. PALLETTRUCK SEE NOTE 9
7'-0
"
W
I
D
E
R
O
L
L
-
U
P
D
O
O
R
OC
SPARE 4CY FLCOMPACTORCONTAINERCOMBINED RECYCLING
3CY FL LOOSE
CONTAINERCOMBINED COMPOST
SPARE 4CY FLCOMPACTORCONTAINERCOMBINED WASTE
FD
3'-0
"
F
I
R
E
EGR
E
S
S
D
O
O
R
1 1 '-1 0 "
WELLNESS/GYM/POOL
RETAIL
ADMIN/OFFICE
ADMIN
LOBBY/LOUNGE
MAIN DINING
MAIN KITCHEN
STAFF/BOH
AMENITIES =17,118 sf
BOH/SUPPORT =9,043 sf
LOBBY/LOUNGE
GROSS AREA RETAIL =4,000 sf
Enhanced Senior and Living Project (Revised)04.01.20248
8
8
8
BLDG 1
RETAIL
BOH/MECH
119
From:Sarah Schueler
To:Gian Martire
Subject:[Urgent] Re: Westport Plan amendments - please review
Date:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:06:48 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 Mr. Martire,
I am writing on behalf of the concerned residents of Arroyo Village and Glenbrook
Apartments, located near the proposed Westport Senior Living Community. After reviewing
the arguments presented by the builder/owner, Jim Abrahms, we would like to express our
concerns to the city’s elected officials and sincerely hope that these issues will be taken into
consideration.
Overall concerns:
1. Revisions to the Original Agreement: The builder/owner of the Westport Community
made several promises to city officials and to nearby residents, committing to the
construction of a community that would not negatively impact the City of Cupertino.
However, the builder has since revised the plans multiple times, now proposing a new
design that primarily benefits the builder's profits, while disregarding the needs of future
residents and the surrounding community. [Further details of these concerns are outlined
below.]
2. Rethinking the Lot Ownership: There is a risk that the builder may continue to revise
the plans in ways that reduce construction costs, ultimately leaving the city with an
abandoned structure. Now is the time for the city to make tough decisions, either by
asking the builder to propose alternative solutions or by purchasing the site for more
beneficial uses in the future (e.g., a new senior center, daycare facility, or recreational
space). Cupertino has limited prime real estate, and it should not be compromised to
save money for a builder at the expense of the residents who contribute significantly in
taxes.
3. Traffic and Safety Issues: The traffic and crosswalk situation at Mary and Memorial
Park is already dangerous for families, children, and the elderly. Vehicles rarely stop,
and with the new construction, visibility will be further impaired, making it difficult for
drivers to see pedestrians in time and potentially leading to fatal accidents.
Arguments Raised by the Builder
Retail and Garage Concerns:
Lack of Effort in Retail Space Development: The retail space in Building 1 has not
been properly promoted, and the placement of benches along that side of the building
makes it difficult for potential merchants to envision occupying the space.
Insufficient Parking for Retail Visitors: If the builder does not add more underground
120
parking, the existing parking spots will be fully occupied by residents, leaving no space
for retail visitors. This lack of designated parking is already a problem, as current
parking spots are often filled throughout the day, and there is no additional parking
available due to the limited spaces on 85 Entrance and Mary (which only allows permit
parking).
Inadequate Parking for Residents: With the proposed increase in units, parking will
become even more strained. The current plan provides fewer than 30% of the required
parking spaces for residents. This suggests that fewer than 30% of residents will own
cars, which is highly unlikely, especially considering that some residents may not have
access to nearby transit hubs.
Unkept Promises to Current Residents: Current residents were initially promised
underground parking for the next phase of construction. This promise has now been
abandoned, creating further frustration for those living in the Westport community.
Arguments Raised by the Builder
Retail and Garage Concerns:
Lack of Effort in Retail Space Development: The retail space in Building 1 has not
been properly promoted, and the placement of benches along that side of the building
makes it difficult for potential merchants to envision occupying the space. The builder
instead uses the building 1 residents as scapegoats to carry the burden of failed retail.
(page 3 of Jim Abraham's letter).
Insufficient Parking for Retail Visitors: If the builder does not add more underground
parking, the existing parking spots will be fully occupied by residents, leaving no space
for retail visitors. This lack of designated parking is already a problem, as current
parking spots are often filled throughout the day, and there is no additional parking
available due to the limited spaces on 85 Entrance and Mary (which only allows permit
parking).
Inadequate Parking for Residents: With the proposed increase in units, parking will
become even more strained. The current plan provides fewer than 30% of the required
parking spaces for residents. This suggests that fewer than 30% of residents will own
cars, which is highly unlikely, especially considering that some residents may not have
access to nearby transit hubs.
Unkept Promises to Current Residents: Current residents were initially promised
underground parking for the next phase of construction. This promise has now been
abandoned, creating further frustration for those living in the Westport community.
Park Land Dedication fee Argument:
Contradiction in the Builder’s Argument: The builder claims that future residents
will be able to walk 0.5 miles to a "major public transit hub," yet they argue that these
same residents will be unable to walk to the nearby park, which is less than 0.5 miles
away. This contradiction suggests that the builder is trying to circumvent the $4M
agreement, which would significantly impact both current residents and the city.
121
Impact on Existing Residents: Residents of Building 1 regularly utilize nearby
facilities, such as the park, senior center, and Quilan Community Center. They also
frequently walk their pets in the park. The addition of new residents would put
additional strain on these public amenities, including the park and nearby transit options,
potentially leading to increased trash and other environmental impacts.
Sidewalk argument: The current proposal does not offer a better pedestrian flow and
the existing sidewalks / crosswalks offer the only way into Memorial Park, the new
structure actually increases risks rather than improves the situation.
----------------
We sincerely hope that our elected city officials will carefully consider these concerns before
agreeing to any further changes proposed by the builder. The builder’s main priority seems to
be maximizing profits at the expense of the community’s well-being—whether through
circumventing the $4M agreement, increasing the number of units to boost profits, or
worsening parking and traffic conditions for existing residents.
Unfortunately, due to the arrival of my newborn son, I will be unable to attend the upcoming
meeting. However, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with any city official in person
to discuss these concerns. I strongly urge the city to engage with community members, not just
the builder, to ensure that our voices are heard.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
Sarah Schueler
122
#129769 Concern with the modification to the Westport Project
Submitted
February 23, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Received via
Mail
Requester
greatben3 <greatbena@gmail.com>
Status
Solved
Type
-
Priority
Normal
Group
Planning
Assignee
Gian Martire
Address
21267 Stevens Creek Blvd
Planning Request Type
Planning Permit Submission/Resubmission
greatben3 February 23, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Dear Director,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the latest modification to the WestPort Project at 21267 Stevens
Creek Boulevard. In particular, the modification seems to include the elimination of the underground garage.
As a current resident and home owner of the Arroyo Village community, we are quite frustrated by the lack of
guest parking availability as it is now. At the moment, there are 21 guest parking spots within the community, and
40 parking spots that are near the existing senior apartments. These parking spots are almost always full, and
primarily occupied by the residents of the senior apartments (which does not have dedicated underground
parking). With the addition of 136 new units in the larger senior apartment, but only 40 more ground parking
spots, I could not see how this would allow a reasonable life quality for whoever lives in the new senior
apartments, let alone allowing any guests to find parking within the Arroyo Village community.
Imagine a senior resident returning to home from grocery shopping, only to find no parking available, and the
nearest public parking is either the Cupertino Sports Center or Target. They would have to hand carry all the
grocery and walk a quarter mile to get home.
Eventually, people will learn to avoid using their cars whenever possible, so as to not lose the precious parking
spot that they currently occupy. These situations are common in Beijing or Tokyo, where parking is scarce and
expensive, but I did not expect people living in a newly built apartment in the center of Cupertino would have to
face the same difficulty.
I understand that there will be a public hearing to discuss the modification proposal, but I am unable to attend
due to some conflicts. If this item is being discussed as part of the modification proposal, please take this fact into
your careful consideration. Also please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions regarding the
current situation of the parking space.
Thank you
Hanchi C.
Gian Martire February 25, 2025 at 4:50 PM
Thank you for your comment. I will add this to the file and include it in the staff report.
Support Software by Zendesk
2/25/25, 4:51 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/129769/print
https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/129769/print 1/1123
From:Luke Connolly
To:Gian Martire
Subject:FW: Project Changes At Westport
Date:Sunday, March 2, 2025 4:44:43 PM
FYI.
Luke Connolly
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development
LukeC@cupertino.gov
(408)777-1275
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 3:59 PM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.gov>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews
<fandrews@awattorneys.com>
Subject: Fw: Project Changes At Westport
What's the approval process for the following amendment for the Westport project plus
a reduction in parking?
"Development Permit Amendment and Architectural & Site Approval to modify Building 1
to increase the residential unit from 123 units to 136 units (an overall increase of 13
units), eliminate the basement-level parking garage, reduce the ground floor retail from
~12,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., and a request to waive the Park Land Dedication Fee. "
The Westport site has been sold to three property owners as I understand. Would the
waiver on Park Land Dedicate Fee be applicable to all three parcels or just to the
remaining unfinished parcel?
The last approval included underground parking for the BMR units for senior
independent living. What will happen to the parking spaces promised for that project in
the underground garage of the last approval?
Thanks for clarifying these.
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
124
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Danessa Techmanski <danessa@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 11:57 AM
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office
<manager@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
<planningcommission@cupertino.org>
Subject: Project Changes At Westport
Dear City Council, City Manager, and Planning Commission,
I am writing you regarding the following project change proposal for the Westport
development:
M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003
Development Permit Amendment and Architectural & Site Approval to modify Building 1 toincrease the residential unit from 123 units to 136 units (an overall increase of 13 units),eliminate the basement-level parking garage, reduce the ground floor retail from ~12,000sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., and a request to waive the Park Land Dedication Fee. For details,please see the 2024 Applications tab below. This proposal is under review.
I find the request for these changes to the retirement development at Westport to be
ludicrous on a number of levels including setting precedents for other developments
within our city and also for their negative impact on our residents' quality of life.
In terms of precedents, I think that we need to hold developers accountable to their
development agreements in most cases. Allowing developers to go back on their word is
like having no real plan at all. Additionally this allows developers to secure plan
approvals that would otherwise not pass and then partially build while awaiting new
housing bills that they can take advantage of in the future. Keep in mind bills like pending
SB79 or any of the other housing bills that call for a reduction in parking. Ditto for
reductions in park or other fees. It has become a game with developers being the only
ones who are winning at this.
125
As for quality of life, this is wrong on so many levels. As our residential developments
become denser and denser we need to rely on more public park spaces and their
upgrades, Not less!
The parking reduction is awful. Although Hopper works well for some it is too area
restricted and inconvenient for many. How do you use Hopper when you want to load up
or purchase large bulky items? What about multiple stops? How do you carpool and
pick up friends? I carry many items that I use in my car and I can’t do that with Hopper
either. I can only take it part way to many places and then I would have to figure out how
to do the last miles and the first miles getting back to Hopper on my return. If people are
forced to use Uber and Hopper that means double the trips as the rides come in and
then leave after the return which doubles our traffic! We just don’t have the connected
mass transit to support this.
The proposed cut to retail is also horrible. We need to put something in place that
ensures that retail that is removed from a site is reincorporated in any new development
plans. Already we are losing so much retail space along Steven’s Creek where Staples
and Panera and Voyager coffee are. Those places continue to be busy and will be sorely
missed when they are gone. I hear of many residents really being tired of the
inconvenience of having to drive farther and spend their tax dollars in other cities. I can’t
believe that the original retail of 40,000 sq. ft. was reduced to 12,000 sq. ft. and now they
want only 4,000 sq. ft?!!! This is right across from our busy De Anza College as well.
Thank you sincerely,
Danessa Techmanski
33-year Cupertino resident
126
From:Steve Lim
To:Gian Martire
Subject:Re: Westport Senior Community Center - important arguments for public hearing
Date:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:11:30 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.
Dear Mr. Martire,
I am a current resident and owner of a property at Arroyo Village, bordering onto the proposed
Westport community, I am expressing my deepest concerns for the proposed changes and
hope you can review these and take them into consideration.
Key Concerns
1. Changes to the Original Agreement: The builder/owner made commitments to both
city officials and residents to create a community that wouldn’t negatively impact
Cupertino. However, the builder has since revised the plans to prioritize profit,
disregarding the needs of future and nearby residents.
2. Traffic and Safety: The traffic and crosswalk conditions at Mary and Memorial Park
are already hazardous. The new construction will worsen visibility for pedestrians,
increasing the risk of accidents, especially for families and the elderly.
Concerns Regarding the Builder’s Arguments
Retail and Parking Issues:
Retail Space Planning: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly marketed,
and the placement of benches limits its appeal to potential merchants. The lack of
designated retail parking is a problem, with current spaces often filled and no additional
parking available due to permit-only restrictions.
Inadequate Resident Parking: The current proposal offers fewer than 30% of units
with parking, which assumes an unrealistic number of residents won’t own cars. This
will worsen parking problems for all.
Unkept Promises to Residents: Existing residents were promised underground parking
for the next phase, but this promise is no longer being honored.
Senior Fee Concerns:
Contradictory Arguments: The builder claims future residents can walk 0.5 miles to a
“major public transit hub” but argues they can’t walk to the nearby park (less than 0.5
miles away). This inconsistency suggests an attempt to bypass the $4M agreement,
which would impact residents and the city.
Impact on Local Facilities: Current residents frequently use nearby amenities like the
127
park, senior center, and community center. The addition of more residents will strain
these resources and increase trash and congestion.
I kindly urge the city’s elected officials to carefully consider these issues before approving
further changes proposed by the builder. The builder is prioritizing profit at the expense of the
community’s well-being.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Steven Lim
128
March 7,2025
Gian Martire
Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1
Dear Mr. Matire,
I am a, long time, resident of the Casa De Anza Condominium complex on Mary Ave. Unfortunately, I cannot
attend the March 11 meeting of the Planning Commission, to share my concerns about one modification for
this project. I believe that the Planning Commission needs to carefully evaluate the impact of the elimination
of the underground parking. From the drawings that are available, it looks like onsite, ground level, parking is
inadequate to serve the needs of a project consisting of 135 dwelling units and 35 n on-residential memory
care units. There appears to be only 40 or parking spaces. I would hope the Commission would ascertain the
number of staff needing parking spaces during the day and evening and how many spaces would be available
for visitors and outside medical staff visiting residents.
From the early planning for the Westport projects, there were promises of underground parking. First, that
was eliminated from the project #3 townhomes. There were still promises that there would be underground
parking for the #2 and #1 projects. The #2 building developers, managed to talk the City into letting them
eliminate the underground parking and now, the developer of the #1 building wants to eliminate underground
parking, claiming that they could be allowed to eliminate it because it is close to a major transportation hub. A
bus stop on Stevens Creek Blvd., in no way, constitutes a major transportation hub for the foreseeable future.
There is another project planned for the west side of Mary Ave, to be called the Villa Apartments. This is to be
a complex of 40 apartments, which will require restructuring the traffic lanes, downsizing the width of the bike
lanes, eliminating parallel parking on the east side of Mary Ave. and replacing diagonal parking with parallel
parking along the length of the Villa Apartments, resulting in a significant reduction of parking space along
Mary Ave. In addition, the need for parking for Memorial Park visitors and events and Senior Center members
is growing, as parking on Mary Ave is diminishing. For these reasons, the need for adequate parking within the
building #1 property is imperative. I highly recommend that the #1 building project developers not be allowed
to eliminate underground parking.
Another concern is that the building #1 drawing, is very unclear, as to what the impact will be on west bound
traffic on Stevens Creek Blvd. The drawings look as though the proposed bike lane and bus stop will reduce the
number of west bound traffic lanes to two, on a portion of Stevens Creek Blvd., from Mary Ave to the highway
85 on ramp. Additional traffic coming out of Mary Ave added to that from De Anza College, as well as west
bound traffic coming along Stevens Creek Blvd. and the relocation of the bus stop to the west side of the Mary
Ave intersection, would l cause serious backups.
I am copying this letter to the Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your attention to my concerns and I
hope the Planning Commissioners have a chance to read the letter before the meeting on March 11.
Sincerely,
Jean Schwab
10353 Mary Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
jeanschwab@aol.com
129
Cupertino Assisted Living - Project Modification Back Up
Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) Parking Needs:
Use Expected Count Typical Parking Need Onsite
Stalls
Potential
Surplus Reasoning for Delta Alternative for Potential Overflow
Residents 171 Units 14 Stalls
= 8% Utilization Rate
(# of Cars / # of Units)
3 11 Residents will be encouraged against
bringing cars. Onsite stalls will be
dedicated to concierge vehicles.
Concierge vehicles take Residents w/in 25 min
radius, nearby Oakmont Properties have surplus
parking (6.5-8.0 miles away in SJ)
Staff 110 Staff / 3 Shifts
= 37 Staff per Shift
10-13 Stalls
= 25-35% of Max
40 Shift Staff
10 3 75% of staff at nearby Oakmont
Properties take alt transit, staff will be
incentivized through vouchers, etc.
Bus, Bike, Hopper, Carpool, De Anza, Use of Retail
Space when not open (i.e. night shift)
Visitor 30 Daily throughout Day
= 5-10 at given time
5-10 Stalls
= 17-33% of
Daily Visitors
5 5 Guest count is variable on day/time,
estimated 30 guests per day spread
across 3-6 visit times
Uber/Carshare, De Anza
Public Parking
Subtotal - Senior Assisted Living 37 Stalls 18 Stalls 19 Stalls
Retail 4 Stalls per 1,000 GSF
on 4,000 GSF
16 Stalls 16 0 N/A
Total 53 Stalls 34 Stalls 19 Stalls
ALTERTNATIVE: REMOVE RETAIL SF Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls
Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls to Resident/Staff Parking 16 Stalls to Residential/Staff Parking
Total - Senior Assisted Living 53 Stalls 34 Stalls
Impacts to Building 2 (Senior Independent) if Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) doesn’t get built:
1. Added Annual Maintenance Costs per REA Budget:
Year 1 REA Budget $97,945
Building 1 Share $50,931
2. Loss of 7 Parking Stalls to be provided following construction of Building 1
7 Parking Stalls Cost PSF SF per Stall Total Cost
Underground $ value $300.00 325 $682,500
Surface $ value $60.00 325 $136,500
3. Loss of Common Open Space (Building 2 Open Space included in Building 1’s Central Green)
Park SF Cost PSF Total Cost
Estimated Cost of Park 12,250 $170 $2,082,500 includes Hard + Soft Costs
130
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13901 Agenda Date: 4/22/2025
Agenda #: 5.
Subject:Review of the new projects proposed in the Fiscal Year 2025 - 2026 Capital Improvement
Program for consistency with the General Plan.
Adopt a Resolution finding that the new project proposed in the Fiscal Year 2025 - 2026 Capital
Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/17/2025Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™131
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: April 22, 2025
Subject
Review of the new projects proposed in the Fiscal Year 2025 - 2026 Capital Improvement
Program for consistency with the General Plan.
Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) finding that the new project in the Fiscal Year 2025 -
2026 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General Plan.
Discussion
Each year the City Council adopts a spending plan for capital improvements throughout
the City. This process prioritizes significant City expenditures on capital projects that are
of importance to the City for a five-year horizon – known as the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). The City then appropriates funding for the first year of the CIP as part of
the adoption of the budget each fiscal year, as the Capital Improvement Budget.
Therefore, while the CIP is a five-year program, funding is not committed for years two
through five of the program, since project priorities may change, and project schedules
may accelerate or decelerate.
The City Council is responsible for adopting the CIP Program and funding priorities.
Pursuant to Government Code section 65401 1 and Chapter 2.32.070.C of the Cupertino
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is responsible for annually reviewing the
adopted Capital Improvement Projgram for consistency with the City’s General Plan
(Attachment 2).
Attachment 3 contains a brief description of the current and new projects proposed in the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 CIP. In FY 2025-2026, only one new project has been proposed.
All other projects in the FY 2025-2026 CIP have been reviewed by the Planning
Commission in prior years and found to be in conformance with the General Plan.
1 CA Government Code Section 65401: “…a coordinated program of proposed public works for
the ensuing fiscal year… shall be submitted to the county or city planning agency for review and
report to [the] official agency as to conformity with the adopted general plan or part thereof.”
132
The FY 2025 – 2026 CIP includes the following new project:
1. Storm Drain Outfalls Repairs
This proposed project, Storm Drain Outfalls Repairs, can be found consistent with the
General Plan: Community Vision 2015– 2040 through reference to the pertinent goals,
policies, and strategies as indicated in Attachment 4. The project also aligns with the
Guiding Principles to “Preserve the Environment” (#10) in that it strengthens
environmental protections to the creeks and waterways of our City. Another relevant
Guiding Principle is “Ensure Fiscal Self Reliance” (#11) by protecting “the City’s ability
to deliver essential, high-quality municipal operations and facilities to the community.”
Environmental Impact
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970
(Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA,”) together with the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) (hereinafter,
"CEQA Guidelines,") City staff has independently studied the proposed action and has
determined that the finding of consistency with the General Plan is exempt from CEQA
pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) in that “it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment.” Furthermore, the finding of consistency with the General Plan is not a
“project” in that it has no “potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment” (CEQA
Guidelines § 15378(a).) Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission find
that this action is exempt from CEQA.
Next Steps
The Planning Commission’s determination will be considered by the City Council as part
of the Council’s review of the City’s Annual Budget, which includes the CIP budget. The
City’s Annual Budget will be proposed at meetings in May 2025.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Susan Michael, Capital Improvement Programs Manager
Reviewed by: Gian Martire, Senior Planner
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Approved by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development
Attachments:
1 - Draft Resolution
2 - FY 2025-26 CIP General Plan Conformance-Relevant Codes
3 - FY 2025-26 CIP Project Narratives
4 - FY 2025-26 CIP Matrix of General Plan Consistency
133
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO FINDING THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2025 – 2026 CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
guides the funding and scheduling of infrastructure improvement projects over
the coming Fiscal Year. The current CIP recommendations have been updated for
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 time period for City Council review and
consideration; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65401 requires that City’s
Planning Commission make a determination that the annual CIP is in conformance
with the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence
presented by the City, city staff, and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino does hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The Planning Commission has duly considered the full record before it,
including the staff report and presentation, facts, exhibits, public testimony and
other evidence and materials submitted or provided to the Commission.
Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: The Planning Commission hereby exercises its independent judgment
and determines that the action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) states that a
project is exempt from CEQA if “it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment.” The action is a determination of consistency with the General Plan
and therefore it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action
may have a significant effect on the environment.
134
Resolution No. __________________
Page 2
Section 3: The Planning Commission finds in accordance with the Cupertino
Municipal Code (CMC) section 2.32.070 (C) and state law based on the evidence
in the public record that the City’s CIP (FY 2025-2026) conforms to the City’s
General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040.)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is not a project under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related
State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for
resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Resolution
is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption
contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with
certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant
effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this
circumstance, the proposed action “Adopt a Resolution finding that the Fiscal Year
2025 - 2026 Capital Improvement Program proposal is consistent with the City's
General Plan” would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment
because it is an administrative action. The foregoing determination is made by the
City of Cupertino Planning Commission in its independent judgment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of Cupertino this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following vote:
Members of the Planning Commission
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
135
Resolution No. __________________
Page 2
APPROVED:
________
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
________________________
Date
136
ATTACHMENT 2
California Government Code Section 65401 reads:
If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, within such time as may be fixed by the
legislative body, each county or city officer, department, board, or commission, and each
governmental body, commission, or board, including the governing body of any special district
or school district, whose jurisdiction lies wholly or partially within the county or city, whose
functions include recommending, preparing plans for, or constructing, major public works,
shall submit to the official agency, as designated by the respective county board of supervisors
or city council, a list of the proposed public works recommended for planning, initiation or
construction during the ensuing fiscal year. The official agency receiving the list of proposed
public works shall list and classify all such recommendations and shall prepare a coordinated
program of proposed public works for the ensuing fiscal year. Such coordinated program shall
be submitted to the county or city planning agency for review and report to said official agency
as to conformity with the adopted general plan or part thereof.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.32.070 (C) the Planning Commission shall,
C. Annually review the capital improvement program of the City and the local public works
projects of other local agencies for their consistency with the General Plan (pursuant to Sections
65400 et seq. of the California Government Code);
1250688.1
137
CIP FY 2024-2025 • 5-year plan ATTACHMENT A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
and 5-YEAR PLAN
NEW PROJECT NARRATIVES
LEGEND
Health and Safety Improvements
Council, Commissions and/or Community Priority
High Priorities established through City’s Master Plans or
Condition Assessment Reports
Projects that are subsequent phases of existing projects;
or projects in the queue that need to be activated
Projects that have secured external funding
CIP FY24-25 • 5-year plan ATTACHMENT A page 1
Projects that have secured external funding, or which
can result in positive fiscal impacts to the City
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVESATTACHMENT B
FISCAL YEAR 2025 - 2026
PROJECT NARRATIVES
Attachment B
138
FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan Council Meeting 4/02/2025 Page 2 of 34
INSERT SECTION PAGE (GRAPHICS!)
CIP: FACILITIESCity of Cupertino
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
139
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
ADA Improvements
Annually Funded
Proposed FY25-26 City Funding $ 110,000
Total Funding $ 970,000
City Funding FY25-26 $ 110,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 191,990
Funding Source, Approved Plan CR
Project Category Facilities
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Various
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-007, PVAR 002
Initiated: FY15-16
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
An update of the City’s ADA Transition Plan was completed in April 2015. The plan identifies improvements needed
and priorities to achieve compliance with ADA in public buildings, parks, and the public right of way.
This is an ongoing program, funded annually, to improve accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City.
There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget.
This is an ongoing initiative funded annually to improve accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City.
Accessibility is an ongoing priority for the City.
This initiative began in FY15-16 and has been funded annually for a total of $970,000 as of February 2025.
140
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Facilities Condition Assessment Implementation
Ongoing initiative to address Facilities Deficiencies
Proposed FY25-26 Funding $ 940,000
Total Funding (pre-FY25-26) $ 2,429,890
City Funding (pre-FY25-26) $ 2,006,470
External Funding $ 367,951 (FY24 CDBG)
$ 55,469 (FY25 CDBG)
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025) $ 1,536,282
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, GP
Project Category Facilities
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Various
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-078, BAI 001
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Ongoing initiative to implement projects from the prioritized recommendations of the 2017/18 “Comprehensive
Facility Condition and Use Assessment” and the “2022 Facility Condition Assessment” (FCA) reports.
The 2017/18 FCA report and the 2022 FCA report assessed the condition of nearly every City owned facility. Several
projects were identified as high priority facilities with significant deficiencies that need to be addressed to avoid costly
repairs and extended service interruptions.
Six projects have been initiated: Senior Center Fire Alarm system (FAS) upgrade, Quinlan Community Center (QCC)
AC Chiller replacements, Sports Center Locker and Shower rooms improvements, and the replacement of three flat
roofs (Sports Center, QCC, and Senior Center). Other completed FCA projects include Sports Center Fire Control
Center panel replacement and the Sports Center Seismic Retrofit. Projects planned for FY25-26 are the upgrades of five
FAS at Monte Vista, Creekside Park Rec, Service Center and Sports Center. Library FAS and Sports Center
Shower/Locker rooms projects are planned for FY26-27.
As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant,
savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs.
Addressing the high-priority FCA projects is the highest priority, as these projects address health and safety concerns.
This initiative began in FY18-19 and received additional City funding in FY23-24. CDBG grant funds were received for
work on the Senior Center property, in FY23-24 and FY24-25.
141
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
City Hall Annex
10455 Torre Avenue Improvements
Total Funding $ 3,000,000
City Funding $ 3,000,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 1,872,539
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, CCMP
Project Category Facilities
Project Type Design and Construction
Location 10455 Torre Ave.
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-248, CIV 011
Initiated FY21-22
Project Description
Project Justification
Projected Cost information
Program, plan and build facility improvements to facilitate short-term and long-term use[s] of the building. The scope
of work will include programming, planning, design, and construction. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) program
and requirements added to the scope of this project in late 2022.
The proximity of this property to the Civic Center, and its central location within the City, lends itself to numerous
uses, including a satellite and/or interim City Hall facility.
When the EOC scope was added, staff made the decision to delay the request for additional project funding for the
EOC until the project was ready to award a contract to a general contractor for construction so that more definitive
costs would be discussed. However, when cost estimates on the 65% set of drawings and specifications came in at
$6.7M in 2024, the decision was made to pause the project until the City Hall project direction was decided, so that
priorities and cost-cutting measures could be evaluated in a fuller context. An updated scope of work, with value-
engineering options, and cost estimate would be required to continue work on the project.
With the news of the inflated costs, numerous options were investigated, from scope reductions to a completely
reduced program of ‘carpet-and-paint only, and other code required renovations such as accessible entries. The most
reduced scope of work was estimated at $2M.
While developing the program for the City Hall Annex building as City’s Permit Center and EOC, staff identified
additional cost impacts, including:
•Increase of construction costs due to the addition of the EOC program and infrastructure. The early estimate
was that the addition of the EOC would add approximately $500,000 in construction costs.
•Increase of soft costs due to the addition of the EOC program. In October 2022, $101,700 was added to the
Design professionals’ contract for this reason. Cost estimate for soft costs is approximately $1.5M, leaving
$1.5M for construction (which is less than required, see below).
•An overall increase in the original construction estimate excluding the addition of an EOC. Staff has learned
that the original construction cost estimate for the overall project was too low. 2023 estimates for 2024
construction were estimated at $6.7M without moving/logistics cost, furniture, and other contingencies
accounted for.
Operation Budget Impact: Once construction is complete, Facilities and Grounds divisions will need to add this
facility to their workload, including maintenance and janitorial.
142
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
City Hall Improvements
Programming, Feasibility, Design, Construction
Total Funding $ 500,000
City Funding $ 500,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 378,036
5-year Funding Total $ 30M to $90M
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, CCMP
Project Category Facilities
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Civic Center
Budget Unit 420-99-250, ST 056
Initiated FY21-22
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Program, plan and build facility improvements at the existing City Hall building site. The scope of work will include
programming, planning, design, and construction. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) moves to another facility,
but this facility is planned as a “Risk Category IV” Essential Services facility as part of the structural system upgrades.
The existing building does not meet current or projected needs for workplace or meeting spaces; all infrastructure
systems (structural HVAC, etc.) are well beyond their useful life and require full replacement.
In the first fiscal year, the design can be initiated. Construction is projected for future fiscal years, depending on the
scope and Environmental Review requirements.
Renovations to the existing facility, or a new facility, are expected to improve operational efficiencies and ultimately
reduce costs.
Improvements to the existing building, whether in the form of a renovation project or a new City Hall facility, are the
highest priority for the health and safety of staff and the community.
Funding required for a renovated or new City Hall is greater than the CIP annual allocations. Alternative funding
means are required.
143
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Library Expansion - Landscaping
Final scope of the Library Expansion project
Total Funding $ 9,705,438
City Funding $ 8,705,438
External Funding $ 1,000,000
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 1,393,310
Funding Source, Approved Plan CR, GF
Project Category Facilities
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Cupertino Library
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-077, CIV 007
Initiated: FY19-20
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Some of the areas in and around the Cupertino Library lack appeal and appropriate facilities for residents who use the
library and the Civic Center space. Providing more usable and efficient infrastructure, as well as better landscaping,
will improve the positive experience of visiting the library and Civic Center.
Landscaping of the building perimeter and courtyard is designed, documented, and ready for a public bid process.
Additional scope under consideration (building electrification, extending electrical junctions to Library field, etc.) will
require supplementary engineering and documentation. Staffing needs are deferring this work.
The expanded areas of landscaping may impact the operating budget slightly, but the improved irrigation will have a
positive effect as well.
Update existing landscape areas adjacent to the Cupertino Library incorporating appropriate drought resistant
plantings, pedestrian amenities including seating and shade structures, and other features to encourage community
activation of the Civic Center. Grant funding awarded in 2024 can be applied to installation of a photovoltaic system,
battery back-up, extension of an electrical service to Library Field, completing construction of exterior improvements
such as the landscaping scope of work, parking and pedestrian improvements, improvements to the drainage and
irrigation systems and water conservation efforts.
The grant funding must be expensed by 2030.
The Library Expansion project completed the building scope of work, except the courtyard renovations and exterior
landscaping, in 2022. The federal grant facilitated by Ro Khanna’s office was awarded in 2024. The grant must be used
for work that has not yet been completed.
144
FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan Council Meeting 4/02/2025 Page 10 of 34
INSERT SECTION PAGE (GRAPHICS!)
CIP: PARKSCity of Cupertino
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
145
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
All Inclusive Playground – Jollyman
And Adult-Assistive Bathroom facility
Total Funding $ 4,891,347
City Funding $ 1,230,000 + $ 850,000
External Funding $ 1,448,201 + $ 1,000,000 +
$ 25,000 + $ 338,146
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025) $ 262,315
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, Grant, PRSMP, DIL
Project Category Parks, Facilities
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Jollyman Park
Origin of Request Public Works, Parks
Budget Unit 420-99-051, PVAR 007
Initiated FY18-19
Project Description
Project Justification
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Design and construct an all-inclusive playground at Jollyman Park, and a new adult-assistive bathroom facility
adjacent to the All-Inclusive Play Area.
Community input secured during the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan process favors having an All-Inclusive
play area in Cupertino. The new "All-Inclusive Playground" (AIPG) project is intended to serve the broad needs of the
[inclusive] community The added bathroom facility can serve all ages who require mobility assistance and will vastly
improve the usability of the new play area.
Anticipated construction completion date is June 2025.
Anticipated to be a slight impact to the Operating Budget due to the specialized nature of the play equipment and the
addition of a bathroom facility. By accepting the grant, the City agreed to construct and maintain the playground for
20 years.
Santa Clara County All-inclusive Playground funding grant was secured in 2019 for $1,448,201. This requires
$2,201,799 in matching funds and required fund-raising of $1M. CA Parks and Recreation department awarded a
second grant in the amount of $1,000,000 as a Specified Grant program, which met the fund-raising requirement.
PG&E also donated $25,000. Art In-Lieu fees were used to design, procure, and install the “kaleidoscope” art feature,
with a budget of $338,146. The Adult-Assistive Bathroom Facility scope was funded by Council in FY22-23 ($850K)
and added to this project funding.
146
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Plan
Design and Construction
Total Funding $ 6,850,909
City Funding $ 6,850,909
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 4,422,565
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, DIL, PRSMP
Project Category Parks
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Near Sterling Barnhart Park
Origin of Request Public Works, Parks
Budget Unit 280-99-009, PLM 001
Initiated FY18-19
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Design and Construct (with programming, public outreach and environmental studies) a neighborhood park located
on several acres of land adjacent to Saratoga Creek, near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Mitty Way.
The City is under-served for neighborhood parks to meet the level of service goal of the City’s General Plan. The east
side of the City is particularly under-served.
Land acquired in September 2020. Design process underway. Due to the extent of environmental permitting required,
the project is expected to remain active until the Spring of 2027.
Adding a park to the inventory will have an impact on the operational budget. Public Works can evaluate more fully
once the design is complete.
In FY18-19, Apple fees for their project development were applied to the purchase, annexation, and development of
this park ($8,270,994). The purchase and annexation costs were approximately $2,330,085. In FY23-24, additional
operational funds were secured to reduce the existing berms on site. The berms reduction can occur once the design is
more established.
The design process is underway, after a conceptual design process with an enhanced public outreach component.
Adding this park is important for the residents on this side of the city.
147
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Park Amenity Improvements
Multi-year initiative
Total Funding $ 600,000
City Funding $ 200,000 x 3years
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 427,010
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, PRSMP
Project Category Parks
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Various
Origin of Request Parks and Recreation
Budget Unit 420-99-086, PVAR 011
Initiated FY 20-21
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Funding for various park amenities such as benches, hydration stations, outdoor table tennis, cornhole, shade
(structures and/or trees), dog-off-leash, pickleball striping, etc.
Residents requested upgrades to the Park amenities, and this program provides the funding and staffing for the
procurement and implementation.
The existing Park sites’ Amenities were evaluated by staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission, and a
prioritization schedule developed. Installations are underway.
There are no anticipated additional impacts to the Operating Budget.
This is a departmental low priority, however it has been a valuable resource to address community concerns in our
parks.
This initiative began in FY20-21 and was funded for three years.
148
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
McClellan Ranch - West Parking Lot Improvement
Mitigation Measure Monitoring & Reporting
Total Funding $ 1,069,682
City Funding $ 1,069,682
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 1,611
Funding Source, Approved Plan CR
Project Category Parks
Project Type Design and Construction
Location McClellan Ranch Preserve
Origin of Request Parks and Recreation
Budget Unit 420-99-030, MRW 002
Initiated: FY16-17
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
The riparian mitigation site between the parking lot and Stevens Creek was planted in 2018 and replanted in 2023.
Performance Monitoring and reporting is required for five years, starting in 2023.
The McClellan Ranch West site was used informally for staff and overflow parking without a suitable, stable surface,
and which is not available for use during wet weather due to mud. The opening of the Environmental Education
Center in 2015 increased the parking demand at McClellan Ranch Preserve. The removal of the Simms house on the
site allowed for the installation of the additional needed parking with a suitable parking surface.
The mitigation measure performance monitoring and reporting will continue until 2027.
Establishment of the native planting requires monitoring and irrigation that will decrease once the plantings mature.
After 2027, the operational impact will decrease.
This mitigation measure performance monitoring and reporting is required to continue to meet the requirements of
the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA; Notification No. 1600-2018-0207-R3) issued by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on December 14, 2018.
This project received City funding in FY16-17, FY17-18 and FY18-19. The monies that remain fund the mitigation
measure performance monitoring and reporting required by the LSAA permit.
149
FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan Council Meeting 4/02/2025 Page 17 of 34
INSERT SECTION PAGE (GRAPHICS!)
CIP: STREETS AND INFRASTRUCTURECity of Cupertino
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
150
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Stevens Creek Bridge Repair
Improve structural foundations
Total Funding $ 860,000
City Funding $ 98,642
External Funding $ 761,358
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 860,000
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF/Grants, GP
Project Category Streets and Infrastructure
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Stevens Creek Blvd over Stevens Creek
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-267, ST 063
Initiated FY23-24
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Repairs to the bridge supports to include countermeasures to scouring (undermining) of the support bases.
The design of the existing bridge utilizes mat foundations for the bridge supports that have started to become
undermined. This project will perform modifications to create a firm structural footing for the supports. The condition
of the support foundations has been noted in recent biennial bridge inspection reports and the repairs are
recommended by Caltrans. The repair work is funded by the FHWA Highway Bridge Program for 88.53% of the
design and construction costs.
Engineering consultants have initialized the preliminary design phase of the project. Once the scope of work required
is more defined, a projected schedule will be developed.
Construction of the project will not increase operating budget expenses.
Improving the safety of our City bridges is a leading priority. Grant funding has been secured which enables the
project team to proceed with preliminary engineering. The engineering firm is in contract with the City. This will
provide insight into final scope and costs.
FHWA funding was awarded for this project. Funding for the design phase is currently programmed in the FTIP for
the 2023/24 FFY and construction funding is programmed for ‘beyond 2025/26.’ Staff will continue to work with
Caltrans to identify opportunities to make construction funds available sooner to minimize time from end of design to
the start of construction.
151
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
McClellan Road Bridge Reconstruction
Projected Costs $ 8,000,000
City Funding $ 0
External Funding $ 5,850,000
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025) $ 5,850,000
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, GP
Project Category Streets and Infrastructure
Project Type Design and Construction
Location McClellan Road 300’ east
of Club House Lane
Priority Medium
Origin of Request Public Works
Initiated FY24-25
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Reconstruction of the bridge on McClellan Road near the entrance to McClellan Ranch Preserve.
The existing bridge was constructed in 1920 and is beyond its design life. It does not meet current requirements for
pedestrian access and lacks the width to facilitate bicycle lanes. A reconstructed bridge will enhance pedestrian
facilities.
Design and Construction will be a multi-year endeavor, requiring environmental permits and Caltrans approvals for
both design and construction procurement.
$5.85M in grant funding has been secured. Approximately $2.2M in funding is still required. Priority for Safety
criteria, following recommendations from inspection reports issued by Caltrans. CIP is starting preliminary design in
FY 24-25 to support efforts to obtain additional grant funding.
Design and construction will require approximately $8M in funding. Staff proposes to utilize the existing grant
funding to initiate preliminary engineering design which will provide further opportunities to apply for grants to
complete the project funding.
Construction of the project will not increase operating budget expenses.
152
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
City Lighting LED Improvements
Updates to meet Dark Sky requirements
Total Funding $ 1,350,000
City Funding $ 1,350,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 501,074
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, GP
Project Category Streets and Infrastructure
Project Type Feasibility
Location Various
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-258, ST 052
Initiated FY21-22
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule
Operating Budget Impacts
Develop a strategy to transition the City's streetlight infrastructure, and other City operated lights, from induction to
LED fixtures to meet the “Dark Sky” requirements and reduce light pollution. Assess the costs, benefits, and
opportunities of the proposed improvements.
In March 2021 the City ratified the "Dark Sky" night lighting requirements for private development. As City street
lighting and other facility lighting may create unintended light pollution, and in some cases is nearing the end of its
useful life, this study will evaluate lighting needs and compliance with dark sky requirements for the City's nearly
3000 streetlights, various path lighting and exterior facility lighting.
Procurement is underway. The construction schedule is listed to be completed by December 2025.
There are no anticipated additional impacts to the Operating Budget by this work.
This project brings the City streetlights into compliance with the Dary Sky codes and reduces energy costs. It is a
highly prioritized project for these reasons and because it is nearing completion.
153
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
City Bridge Maintenance Repairs
Repairs from Caltrans report
Total Funding $ 2,176,105
City Funding $ 282,910
External Funding $ 1,893,195
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 174,347
Funding Source, Approved Plan TF, GP
Project Category Streets and Infrastructure
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Homestead/ McClellan @ Stevens
Ck., Stevens Creek/ Vallco/ Miller/
Tantau @ Calabazas Ck.
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 270-90-960, ST 002
Initiated FY15-16
Project Description
Project Justification
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Design and construct 6 bridges' repairs as recommended in the Caltrans Bridge Report along with additional
improvements to prolong the useful life of the bridges.
The City of Cupertino owns and maintains a total of eight vehicular bridges. Caltrans inspects these bridges and
prepares a biennial report detailing the recommended repairs. Six of the eight bridges require rehabilitation; SCB over
Stevens Creek has issues not covered by maintenance. The rehabilitation includes the required repairs as
recommended in the Caltrans Bridge Report as well as additional work to prolong the life and use of the bridges.
Approximately 88% of the project costs are eligible for Federal reimbursement through FHWA’s Bridge Preventive
Maintenance Program (BPMP), which is administered by Caltrans.
Construction is anticipated to be complete in April 2025.
There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) grant funding begun as $571,151 and was increased since FY15-16 to
be a total of $1,893,195. This grant will be a reimbursement and requires $245,284 in matching funds.
154
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Streetlight Installation – Annual Infill
Annually funded
Proposed FY25-26 Funding $ 0
Total Funding $ 430,000
City Funding FY25-26 $ 0
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 139,741
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, GP
Project Category Streets and Infrastructure
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Various
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-056, ST 024
Initiated FY17-18
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Design and install streetlights on an as needed basis, to infill lights and poles when requested by residents.
There are areas of the city where streetlight spacing is insufficient to meet current standards for illumination. Several
locations are identified annually for infill with one or two lights. This annual appropriation allows these deficiencies
to be readily addressed.
Ongoing program.
This program uses staff time for the installation of these lights. Additional annual energy costs will be extremely
minor.
Providing these services and fixtures for resident safety and welfare is important.
This initiative began in FY17-18 and has been funded annually for a total of $430,000 as of February 2025. Most years
had allocations of $75,000 per year. This amount was reduced in recent years to be $35,000. No request for additional
funds in FY25-26. This may move to become Streets division “Special Project” in FY26-27.
155
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Vai Avenue Outfall
Total Funding $ 490,000
City Funding $ 490,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 438,756
Funding Source, Approved Plan CR/SD, GP/SDMP
Project Category Streets and Infrastructure
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Vai Ave outfall near
Regnart Creek
Origin of Request Public Works
Initiated FY24-25
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan Information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Investigate, design, and replace existing failing 36” corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm drain line with new reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP) or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe.
In December 2023, the City was made aware of damage to this storm drain outfall. The City operates and maintains
the storm drain facilities throughout Cupertino. The storm drain pipe in question has corroded, undermined the creek
bank, and needs to be replaced before further erosion and property damage occurs.
The outfall was patched with a new section of CMP as a quick fix in October 2024. The repair should last one or two
rainy seasons, then we can pursue full replacement of the CMP that has eroded. Site access is difficult and will require
environmental permitting.
No ongoing operational impacts are expected.
Replacement of the pipe is necessary to ensure proper operation to protect public and private property and safety.
The initial repair used approximately $25,000. The proposed budget will enable design, construction, and
environmental permitting of the CMP replacement. Storm Drain funds (210) will be used if available.
156
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Storm Drain Outfalls Repairs
Priority projects from 2024 Outfalls report
Proposed FY25-26 Funding $ 950,000
City Funding $ 950,000
External Funding $ 0
5-year Funding Total $ TBD
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF
Project Category Streets and Infrastructure
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Near 10516 Whitney Way
Origin of Request Public Works
Proposed: FY25-26
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
The 2024 Storm Drain Outfall Condition Assessment report assessed 205 pipe segments across 175 sites. Of the 117
outfalls three were in level 5 defective condition, and three were in level 4 defective condition. The FY25-26 funding
requested will address the three outfalls that have the most severe damage and present as imminent failures. In
following years, additional funding will be requested to address deficiencies noted in the report.
The three locations for FY25-26 are: #SWPP398 is an 48-inch diameter corrugated metal pipeline (CMP) near the
vicinity of Whitney Way and Pacific Drive, #SWPP1546 is an 15-inch diameter corrugated metal pipeline (CMP) near
the vicinity of Richwood Court and Miller Avenue, and #SWPP3360 is an 30-inch diameter corrugated metal pipeline
(CMP) near the vicinity of Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. All three show sign of corrosion and need to
be rehabilitated.
The Storm Drain Outfall Condition Assessment Project completed in 2024 identified multiple structural defects of
existing storm drain pipelines that need to be rehabilitated. These defects pose a significant risk to the integrity of the
storm drain system. Addressing the issues through timely rehabilitation is crucial to maintain the functionality of the
system.
It is estimated that the construction of these three outfall repairs can be completed within a year.
There are no operating budget impacts to completing this project.
This project will mitigate the defects to prevent further deterioration of the pipeline. The project is of high importance
to address the risk of pipeline failure.
Funding source for this project will be from either General Fund or Stormwater Fund. No grant funds are available.
157
FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan Council Meeting 4/02/2025 Page 24 of 34
INSERT SECTION PAGE (GRAPHICS!)
CIP: TRANSPORTATIONCity of Cupertino
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
158
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway – Phase 2A
Separated Bikeway & Signal Upgrades
Total City Funding $ 2,350,000
City Funding $ 2,350,000
External Funding $ 807,000 (OBAG)
External Funding $ 693,000 (SB1)
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 277,829
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF/GF, BTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location SCB: Wolfe to De Anza
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 053 and ST 059
Initiated FY20-21
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Phase 2A includes design and construction of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd (SCB) from Wolfe
Road to De Anza Blvd. Improvements include traffic signal modifications at Wolfe Road and De Anza Blvd to provide
separate bicycle phasing.
The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvements needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer
bicycle transportation in the City. The number one priority of the Plan was to provide a separated Class IV bicycle lane
on Stevens Creek Blvd. This project is the second phase to address that priority.
Design and Documentation, and community outreach for Phase 2A (Wolfe Road to De Anza Blvd.) is complete. The
construction contract for Phase 2A was awarded in February 2025. Construction will be complete before the end of the
calendar year. See Phase 2B project narrative for more information on the subsequent work on this project.
It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. This
cost will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in the Operating budget.
Improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern. The Bike Transportation plan named this
the first priority, and the Pedestrian Transportation assigned this Tier 1 priority.
External grant funding has been secured for this project (OBAG and SB1 funding) and this will be used to reduce the
City’s costs on Phase 2A. The remainder of the funds allocated by the City for Phase 2 will be used on Phase 2B.
159
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway – Phase 2B
Separated Bikeway & Signal Upgrades
Total City Funding*$ TBD
City Funding*$ 0
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)N.A.
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF/GF, BTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location SCB: De Anza to Highway 85
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 053 and ST 059
Initiated FY20-21
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Phase 2B includes design and construction of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd (SCB) from De Anza
Blvd. to Highway 85. Upgrades to the traffic signal at Bandley Dr. and Stevens Creek Blvd. will include new conduit,
wiring, traffic signal boxes, two new signal heads, and a split phase signal operation for vehicles entering onto Stevens
Creek Blvd. *Note: SCB Phase 2A and 2B were jointly funded in design. SCB Bikeway Phase 2B and Bandley Drive Signal
Upgrade projects are combined in design and construction to increase efficiency, however funding is noted separately because the
Bandley intersection project is funded with DIL fees.
The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvements needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer
bicycle transportation in the City. The number one priority of the Plan was to provide a separated Class IV bicycle lane
on Stevens Creek Blvd. This project is the second phase to address that priority.
It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. This
cost will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in the Operating budget.
Design and Documentation of Phase 2B and the Bandley project is 95% complete. The project will be permitted, bid,
and constructed once Phase 2A is complete.
Improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern. The Bike Transportation plan named this
the first priority, and the Pedestrian Transportation assigned this Tier 1 priority.
*External grant funding has been secured for Phase 2A of this project and this will be used to reduce the City’s costs
on Phase 2A. The remainder of the funds allocated by the City for Phase 2 will then be used on Phase 2B. External
funding may be available for Phase 2B.
160
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Bandley Drive Signal Upgrades
Traffic & Signal Upgrades
Total Funding $ 150,090
City Funding $ 124,432
External Funding $ 25,658 (DIL)
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 142,210
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF & DIL/GF, BTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location SCB & Bandley Intersection
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-070, ST044
Initiated FY18-19
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Upgrades to the traffic signal at Bandley Dr. and Stevens Creek Blvd. will include new conduit, wiring, traffic signal
boxes, two new signal heads, and a split phase signal operation for vehicles entering onto Stevens Creek Blvd. Note:
SCB Bikeway Phase 2B and Bandley Drive Signal Upgrade projects are combined in design and construction to increase
efficiency. Funding is noted separately because the Bandley intersection project is funded with DIL fees.
The Bandley Drive Signal Upgrades will significantly enhance pedestrian safety and pedestrian connectivity across
Stevens Creek Blvd within the Crossroads district by reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Vehicle safety will also be
increased for vehicles exiting the Crossroads driveway and Bandley Drive.
The signal upgrades will not increase operational costs.
Design and Documentation of Phase 2B and the Bandley project is 95% complete. The project will be permitted, bid,
and constructed once Phase 2A is complete.
Improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern. This project will significantly enhance
pedestrian and vehicular safety.
External grant funding has been secured for Phase 2A. Additional external funding may be available for Phase 2B. The
remainder of the City funds allocated for Phase 2 will be applied to Phase 2B once Phase 2A is complete. The scope of
work for the Bandley intersection will be included in the Phase 2B scope of work for efficiency.
161
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Bollinger Road Corridor Study
Traffic Analysis, Feasibility and Preliminary Design
Total Funding $ 532,000
City Funding $ 106,400
External Funding $ 425,600
5-year Funding Total $ 4,000,000
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 532,000
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, BTP & BCSS
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Bollinger Road, De Anza Blvd to
Lawrence Exp.
Origin of Request Public Works, BPC
Budget Unit 270-99-270, ST 067
Initiated FY24-25
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
In December 2020, City staff initiated a safety and operational study of the Bollinger Road from De Anza Boulevard to
Lawrence Expressway to identify improvements that will enhance pedestrian, bicycle, motor-vehicle, and transit
operations as a safety corridor. This is a collaboration between the City of Cupertino and City of San José.
Further design and analysis work is required. This includes a topographic and utilities survey of Bollinger Road,
preliminary engineering, and traffic analysis. The traffic analysis will determine the potential for the road diet
(Alternative A from 2020 Feasibility Study) to increase congestion or divert traffic onto residential streets, and any
corresponding mitigation measures to limit that impact (Alternative B from 2020 Feasibility Study).
Year 1 work includes preliminary design, feasibility, public outreach, traffic analysis, and topographic surveying. Year
2 will see continuation of Year One activities and initial preliminary engineering. Year 3 will encompass final
preliminary engineering and preparation of final plans, specifications, and estimates.
T.B.D.
External grant funding obtained; 20% matching funds required. Improves safety and sustainable means of
transportation and builds upon master plan priorities. Initial Traffic Study and preliminary designs can be initiated in
this FY by PW.
Funding for analyses, public outreach, and preliminary plans, and estimates. Construction of improvements will
require additional funding.
162
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Roadway Safety Improvements
High Friction Pavement & Speed Feedback Signage
Total Funding $ 3,561,800
City Funding $ 356,180
External Funding $ 3,205,620
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 3,500,800
Funding Source, Approved Plan CR/grant, GP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Various
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 270-99-271, ST 068
Initiated FY24-25
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan Information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
High Friction pavement treatment and speed feedback signage added to seventeen locations within the City. Roadway
segments include sections of: De Anza Blvd, Homestead Rd, Bollinger Rd, Wolfe Rd, McClellan Rd, Bubb Rd, Mariani
Ave, Tantau Ave, Mary Ave, Blaney Ave, Rainbow Dr, Miller Ave, Stelling Rd, Valley Green Dr, and Calvert Dr.
Improves safety on roadway segments by reducing unsafe speed violations and rear end collision by implementing
dynamic/variable speed warning signs at the curves along the corridor and improving pavement friction. This scope
of work supports the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which identifies transportation safety improvement needs
for all ages, abilities, and modes of transportation for the purpose of reducing fatal and severe injury collisions. In July
2023, City Council accepted state funding from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant for safety
improvements on 17 roadway segments in the City of Cupertino.
The project is currently in design. The construction is scheduled to be completed in winter 2025/2026.
Construction of the project will not significantly increase operating budget expenses.
$3.2M in grant funding has been secured, 10% matching funding required by the City. Priority for Safety criteria.
Funding will be applied to design and construction.
163
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Tamien Innu, East Segment
East Segment of the Trail
Total Funding $ 2,536,000
City Funding $ 0
Dev Funding $ 600,000
External Funding $ 1,936,000 (VTA Meas B + TDA3)
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 1,829,816
Funding Source, Approved Plan AP/Grant, BTP, PTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Wolfe Road to Calabazas Creek
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 046
Initiated FY20-21
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Design of an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel from De Anza
Blvd. Wolfe Road (Central), and from Wolfe Rd. to Vallco Parkway (East).
Highly prioritized in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Tamien Innu is one of the trail segments that would
make up “The Loop” to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing Junipero
Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle – Pedestrian
Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed.
Schematic design for both the Central and East segments have been submitted for environmental review. Construction
and permitting documentation for the East segment are underway. The Central segment design and construction will
progress once the first segment enters construction, and the environmental report is reviewed.
It is anticipated that trail will require additional maintenance. However, it is anticipated that these impacts will be
minimal.
Facilitating alternative means of transportation is a valuable resource for the City and its businesses.
Developer funding was contracted in FY18-19, and Council added the project to the CIP in FY20-21. VTA Measure B
and TDA3 funding has been awarded.
164
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Tamien Innu, Central Segment
Central Segment of the Trail
Total Funding $ 4,785,000
City Funding $ 0
Dev Funding $ 600,000
External Funding $ 460,000 (VTA Meas B)
External Funding $ 3,725,000 (VTA Meas B)
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 4,582,979
Funding Source, Approved Plan AP/Grant, BTP, PTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location De Anza Blvd. to Wolfe Road
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 050
Initiated FY20-21
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Highly prioritized in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Tamien Innu Trail is one of the trail segments that
would make up “The Loop” to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing
Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle –
Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed.
It is anticipated that trail will require additional maintenance. However, it is anticipated that these impacts will be
minimal.
Design of an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel from De Anza
Blvd. Wolfe Road (Central), and from Wolfe Rd. to Vallco Parkway (East).
Schematic design for both the Central and East segments have been submitted for environmental review. Construction
and permitting documentation for the East segment are underway. The Central segment design and construction will
progress once the first segment enters construction, and the environmental report is reviewed.
Facilitating alternative means of transportation is a valuable resource for the City and its businesses.
Developer funding was contracted in FY18-19, and Council added the project to the CIP in FY20-21. VTA Measure B
and TDA3 funding has been awarded.
165
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Tamien Innu, West Segment
West Segment of the Trail
Total Funding $ 600,000
City Funding $ 0
Dev Funding $ 600,000
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 600,000
Funding Source, Approved Plan AP/Grant, BTP, PTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Don Burnett bridge to De Anza
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 051
Initiated FY20-21
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Highly prioritized in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Tamien Innu Trail is one of the trail segments that
would make up “The Loop” to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing
Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle –
Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed.
It is anticipated that trail will require additional maintenance. However, it is anticipated that these impacts will be
minimal.
Design of an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel from De Anza
Blvd. Wolfe Road (Central), and from Wolfe Rd. to Vallco Parkway (East).
Schematic design for both the Central and East segments have been submitted for environmental review. Construction
and permitting documentation for the East segment are underway. The Central segment design and construction will
progress once the first segment enters construction, and the environmental report is reviewed. The design and
construction of the west segment will follow the central segment.
Facilitating alternative means of transportation is a valuable resource for the City and its businesses.
Developer funding was contracted in FY18-19, and Council added the project to the CIP in FY20-21.
166
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
School Walk Audit Implementation
Tier 3 Improvements
Total Funding $ 1,245,852
City Funding $ 23,989
External Funding $ 1,221,863
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 939,405
Funding Source, Approved Plan AP/GF, GP & PTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Citywide, in the vicinity of
14 public schools
Origin of Request Public Works
Budget Unit 420-99-069, ST 034
Initiated FY18-19
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
This project will construct infrastructure-related improvements around schools that were identified as part of the
comprehensive School Walk Audit study. Traffic improvements will improve walkability and safety around 14
Cupertino schools: Lincoln ES, Monta Vista HS, Lawson MS, Sedgwick ES, Hyde MS, Garden Gate ES, Homestead HS,
Collins ES, Faria ES, Stevens Creek ES, Regnart ES, Cupertino HS, Kennedy MS, Eaton ES.
A walk audit is an assessment of travel behaviors for drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians (both parents and students),
developed by observing a school pick up or drop-off period on and around school grounds. Walk audits provide
insight into the specific barriers to walking and biking at each school. The assessment team included Alta Planning +
Design staff; City of Cupertino staff, nearby residents, and concerned parents. After the audit period completed, audit
participants returned to discuss and document their findings on a large-scale school area map. Based on observations
and input provided by school staff, audit participants, and others, the project team developed walk audit reports.
Tier 1 and 2 items are almost complete, and three Tier 3 items are being initiated: Hyannisport Drive at Fort Baker
Drive intersection reconstruction, Phil Lane Drop-Off sidewalk widening, and Tantau Ave/Barnhart Ave sidewalk
widening. It’s estimated that design and construction of the project will have a 3-year duration.
There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget.
The walk audit items identify barriers to walking and biking to school and recommend ways to improve safety and
traffic conditions around local schools. Health and safety are the first priority.
In 2019, Apple, Inc. granted funds for the cost of implementing all the walk audit improvements in the City's ROW.
167
FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan Council Meeting 4/02/2025 Page 30 of 34
INSERT SECTION PAGE (GRAPHICS!)
City of CupertinoCIP: SUSTAINABILITY
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
168
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
EVCS expansion - Service Center
Total Funding $ 560,000
City Funding $ 560,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 560,000
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, GP
Project Category Sustainability, Facilities
Project Type Construction
Location 10555 Mary Avenue
Origin of Request Public Works
Initiated FY24-25
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
The construction of electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) infrastructure at the Service Center is needed for the
electrification of the City’s fleet in order to meet the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation by California Air
Resources Board (CARB). The scope of work follows the Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) report which identified
the charging infrastructure needs to meet ACF regulation.
The SVCE systematic assessment of City fleet vehicles had the primary goals of identifying vehicle electrification
opportunities, establishing an electrification timeline based on vehicle replacements and the City’s climate action goals
and regulatory compliance, and determining the costs and emissions benefits of fleet electrification.
The design will be completed by the SVCE Consultant, Optony, Inc in Spring 2024. The City will need to coordinate
with PG&E to obtain new electrical service which could take some time. It is currently anticipated that the project can
begin construction in the latter half of 2025.
As EV infrastructure charging units are implemented, staff or contractor resources will be necessary for installation
and maintenance of the units. It is difficult to determine the overall operation budget at this time. The maintenance of
a Level 2 charger is estimated at $500 per station annually, and $3000 per station annually for Level 3 EVCS.
State regulations require the conversion of City fleet vehicles to electric vehicles, and the EVCS infrastructure is
needed to address operations in response to those requirements.
Funding for construction of the infrastructure required for operation of the EVCS. Procurement and installation of
units, ongoing operation of the facilities, as well as potential upgrades to electrical service, may require additional
funding.
169
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Photovoltaic Systems Design & Installation
Total Funding $ 6,300,000
City Funding $ 6,300,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 6,296,600
Funding Source, Approved Plan CR, CAP
Project Category Sustainability, Facilities
Project Type Design and Construction
Location Community Hall, Sports
Center, Quinlan
Community Center
Origin of Request Public Works
Initiated FY24-25
Project Description
Project Justification
Prioritization
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan Information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
In 2023 PG&E announced a rate decrease for electricity generated by photovoltaic (PV) systems (NEM 3) but provided
a window to allow grandfathering the more economically-attractive NEM 2.0 rates if interconnection applications
were successfully submitted and corresponding systems operational by 2026. NEM 2.0 Interconnection Applications
were successfully submitted to PG&E for five Cupertino facilities: Blackberry Farm, Civic Center, Library, Quinlan
Community Center & Senior Center, and Sports Center. This project aims to design and build PV systems at three
locations. Council reviewed and approved the conceptual designs for Community Hall, Quinlan Community Center
and Sports Center in December 2024 before awarding the Design Build contract in February 2025.
The City must connect the proposed photovoltaic systems to the grid by 4/15/2026 in order to take advantage of the
NEM 2.0 applications, which provides 75 – 80% greater compensation than NEM 3 rates for electricity that is fed back
into the electrical system. The savings in utility costs are projected to be $290K annually, and $13.4M over a 30yr
lifespan.
Conceptual Design development and cost analysis completed in 2024. Design-Build: March 2025 to April 2026
Installation of the PV systems is projected to save $290K annually in utility costs. While additional maintenance will be
required for the PV systems, additional staffing will not be required for ongoing operations and maintenance.
Installation of the PV systems is projected to provide substantial savings on utility costs, going forward. The use of
cleaner energy sources is a CAP goal.
The proposed budget will enable design and construction of the systems. Inflation Reduction Act credits projected for
this project are approximately $1.4M. Staff will also pursue other grant funding opportunities.
170
171
FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan Council Meeting 4/02/2025 Page 30 of 34
INSERT SECTION PAGE (GRAPHICS!)
CIP: COMPLETED PROJECTSCity of Cupertino
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
172
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
Blackberry Farm Pool Improvements
Replaster the pools, and miscellaneous upgrades
Total Funding $ 750,000
City Funding $ 750,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 31,204
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, PRSMP & ADA
Project Category Facilities, Parks
Project Type Design and Construction
Location BBF Pools Facility
Origin of Request Parks and Recreation
Budget Unit 420-99-073, PVAR 012
Initiated FY21-22
Project Description
Project Justification
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Operating Budget Impacts
Make improvements to the pools and facility related to safety, accessibility, and maintenance. The scope includes
replastering the recreation and the slide pools, redirection of the existing deck drains to existing bioswale, and
removing accessibility barriers within the pool house dressing rooms as identified in the 2015 ADA Transition Plan,
the 2021 Site Accessibility Report and 2020 building permit application comments.
For multiple years, the two pools at Blackberry Farm have displayed all the signs that are indicative of the need to re-
plaster a pool including mineral stains, peeling of the surface, and a rough surface area. The rough surface has been
the cause of several injuries, including a worker's compensation claim. The replastering of pools at Blackberry Farm
was last performed in 2009. This maintenance scope, as well as the sanitary and accessibility corrections required by
the 2020 permit application process for this scope, are required to continue operations of the aquatic facilities beyond
the 2021 aquatic season.
Completed in Summer 2024.
There are no anticipated additional impacts to the Operating Budget.
173
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
DeAnza Blvd Buffered Bike Lanes
Restripe De Anza Blvd for Bike lanes
Total Funding $ 530,533
City Funding $ 364,274
External Funding $ 166,259
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 176,259
Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, BTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location De Anza Blvd, entire segment within City
limits (Bollinger Road to Homestead Road).
Budget Unit 420-99-078, CIV 009
Initiated FY22-23
Project Description
Project Justification
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Restripe De Anza Blvd to include a painted buffered zone between the existing bike lane and the vehicle lanes.
Project is identified as the highest of the Tier 2 priority projects in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Project will
install a painted buffer area between the existing bike lane and the adjacent vehicle lane. This will require restriping
De Anza Blvd to narrow the vehicle lanes to provide room for the painted buffer. Design will be done in-house,
funding is for construction only.
Construction was completed in early 2025.
There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget.
TDA3 grant was secured in FY24-25 for $166,259. The project budget was not increased, but the grant funding will be
used to reduce the City’s expenses.
174
CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES
McClellan Road Separated Bike Corridor
De Anza and Pacifica/McClellan intersection
Total Funding $ 2,299,410
City Funding $ 164,410
External Funding $ 2,135,000
Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 99,273
Funding Source, Approved Plan AP/GF/Grant, BTP
Project Category Transportation
Project Type Design and Construction
Location De Anza Blvd, McClellan Road,
Pacifica Avenue Intersections
Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 047
Initiated FY20-21
Project Description
Project Justification
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information
Funding Information
Operating Budget Impacts
Improves pedestrian and bicycle safety by realigning the intersection and reconfiguring the vehicle movements.
Improvements include relocating two signal mast arms and poles, related electrical, concrete and striping work, and
elimination of the free right turn lanes from eastbound McClellan Road and westbound Pacifica Drive.
Improve traffic flow, efficiency, and bicycle safety at this complex intersection.
The project was completed in the Summer of 2024.
There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget.
Apple funding ($160,000) and a VERBS grant ($1,000,000) were awarded in FY19-20. SB1 funding was applied in FY23-
24 for $975,000.
175
TITLE GOALS Relevant Projects
Storm Drain
Outfalls Repairs
GOAL LU-8
Fiscal Stability
Maintain a fiscally sustainable city government that preserves
and enhances the quality of life for its residents, workers and
visitors
Policy LU-8.1 Fiscal Health: Maintain and improve the City’s long-term fiscal
health.
Policy LU-8.2 Land Use: Encourage land uses that generate City revenue.
Policy LU-8.4 Property Acquisition: Maximize revenue from City-owned land
and resources, and ensure that the City’s land acquisition
strategy is balanced with revenues.
Policy LU-8.5 Efficient Operations: Plan land use and design projects to allow
the City to maintain efficient operations in the delivery of
services including, community centers, parks, roads, and storm
drainage, and other infrastructure.
x
GOAL ES-5
Urban and Rural
Ecosystems
Protect the City's Urban and Rural ecosystems
x
GOAL ES-7
Water
Ensure protection and efficient use of water resources
x
ATTACHMENT 4
4/7/2025
General Plan References
Page 1 of 2 176
TITLE GOALS Relevant Projects
Storm Drain
Outfalls Repairs
ATTACHMENT 4
GOAL INF-1
Citywide
Infrastructure
Ensure that the city’s infrastructure is enhanced and
maintained to support existing development and growth in a
fiscally responsible manner. The City seeks to coordinate its
municipal services with those of other service providers in
order to build and maintain infrastructure that fully serves the
current and future needs of the Cupertino community.
x
Policy INF-1.1 Infrastructure Planning: Upgrade and enhance the City’s
infrastructure through the City’s Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) and requirements for development.
x
Strategy INF-1.1.1 Capital Improvement Program: Ensure that CIP projects reflect
the goals and policies identified in Community Vision 2040.x
Strategy INF-1.1.2 Design Capacity. Ensure that public infrastructure is designed
to meet planned needs and to avoid the need for future
upsizing. Maintain a balance between meeting future growth
needs and over-sizing of infrastructure to avoid fiscal impacts
or impacts to other goals.
x
GOAL INF-4
Stormwater
Implement best practices in stormwater management to reduce
demand on the stormwater network, reduce soil erosion, and
reduce pollution into reservoirs and the Bay x
Policy INF-4.1 Planning and Management: Create plans and operational
policies to develop and maintain an effective and efficient
stormwater system.
x
Strategy INF-4.1.2 Infrastructure. Develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
for the City’s storm drain infrastructure that meets the current
and future needs of the community.
x
4/7/2025
General Plan References
Page 2 of 2 177