Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
PC Packet 04-25-2017CITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:45 PM
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Draft Minutes of March 14, 2017
Recommended Action: approve or modify the Draft Mimutes of March 14, 2017
Draft Minutes of March 14, 2017
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission
on any matter 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.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT CALENDAR
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
2.Subject: Review of the five-year Capital Improvements Program (FY 2017-2018
to 2021-2022) for conformity to the City’s General Plan; Application Name:
Capital Improvements Program,: Applicant(s): City of Cupertino; Location:
citywide
Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO
April 25, 2017Planning Commission AGENDA
Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council concur that the program
conforms to the City's General Plan per the draft resolution
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution
2 - Municipal Code Section 2.32.070
3 - Proposed CIP Budget Report-FY2018
4 - Matrix of CIP Projects and General Plan Consistency Notes
5 - Excerpts of general plan policies and text
3.Subject: Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision to approve an
Amendment to an existing Use Permit to allow a private school /daycare center to
expand their hours of operation to 7:00 am to 6:30 pm and a Director’s Minor
Modification to allow modifications to the site including installation of an
outdoor play structure. Application No.(s): U-2016-02, DIR-2016-34 ;
Appeallant(s): Srilakshmi Vemulakonda; Applicant: Diane Hsu; Location: 940 S.
Stelling Rd; APN: 359-25-041
Recommended Action: Uphold the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer
and deny the appeal of the approval of the Use Permit Amendment (U-2016-02) and
the Director’s Minor Modification (DIR-2016-34) per the draft resolutions
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold approval of U-2016-02
2 - Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold approval of DIR-2016-34
3 - Applicant Project Description
4 - Plan Set
5 - Adminstrative Hearing Staff Report dated February 23, 2017
6 - Appellant's Letter
7 - Noise Study
8 - Adminstrative Hearing Summary
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO
April 25, 2017Planning Commission AGENDA
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 the next Planning Commission 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, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon
request, in advance, by a person with a disability, Planning Commission meeting
agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made
available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an
assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting.
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, during normal
business hours and in Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page
on the Cupertino web site.
Members of the public are entitled to address the Planning Commission concerning any
item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during
consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on any issue
that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the
Commission, and deliver it to the City Staff prior to discussion of the item. When you
are called, proceed to the podium and the Chair will recognize you. If you wish to
address the Planning Commission on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so
by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure
described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Please note
that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10
minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
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 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. MARCH 14, 2017 TUESDAY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The regular Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 2017, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chairperson Don Sun.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chairperson:Don Sun
Vice Chairperson: Geoff Paulsen
Commissioner: Alan Takahashi
Commissioner: David Fung
Commissioner: Jerry Liu
Staff Present: Assistant City Manager: Aarti Shrivastava
Asst. Community Development Director:Benjamin Fu
Principal Planner: Piu Ghosh
Associate Planner: Erick Serrano
Deputy City Attorney: Angela Munuhe
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the February 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Motion by Com Liu, second by Com. Fung, and carried
4-0-1, Vice Chair Paulsen abstain, to approve the minutes of the
February 14, 2017 Planning Commission meeting as presented.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
2. EXC-2016-08 Hillside Exception to allow the construction of an
Charles Holman attached pool house and patio to an existing residence
(Mahoney residence)on slopes greater than 30%. Applicant has requested
11406 Lindy Lane a continuance to the April 11, 2017 meeting. Planning
Commission decision final unless appealed
Item continued to April 11, 2017.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 2
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. EXC-2016-08 Continued to April 11, 2017
3. MCA-2017-02 Municipal Code Amendment to Title 19, Zoning,
City of Cupertino of the Cupertino Municipal Code, to allow the creation of Single-
Citywide Location Story Overlay Zones in single-family residential zoning districts.
Erick Serrano, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for Municipal Code Amendment to Title 19, Zoning of the Cupertino
Municipal Code, to allow the creation of single-story overlay zones in single-family residential zoning
districts. Reviewed the background on the proposed project; currently the city allows for two story
homes to be built in the R1 zoning district that meet applicable development regulations, and meet all
the necessary findings. Often times neighborhood concerns arise from the proposed building heights,
neighborhood compatibility as well as impacts to privacy and light. In this proposed process it is
important to note that the city currently has single-story overlay throughout the city; what it does is
limits homes to a single-story or 18 feet in that zone. In the past, overlay districts have been
accomplished through a map amendment or a zone map amendment; there is no existing application
process for a new single-story overlay district. The process for these types of overlay districts typically
begin with a neighborhood petitioning Council to make a zone change and then directing staff to move
forward with that request. This process is for an existing single-story overlay district that does exist;
discussion is about the proposed process to create a clear application process; there is no proposed
changes to the rules or regulations that govern single story overlay districts.
Council directed staff to develop a community general process forthe review and processing of requests
for single-story overlay districts in the single family residential zones. The intent is to make a process
so that a neighborhood or community could determine whether or not they think a single-story overlay
district would be best suited for their neighborhood. Staff looked into the process of neighboring
jurisdictions as well as current processes they have for similar types of applications He described the
proposed overlay process, characteristics and thresholds, as outlined in staff report.
He reviewed the overlay district boundary and characteristics outlined in overhead presentation, and
reviewed the process for undoing a single-story overlay. The process is similartodoing the single story
overlay; the only difference being that you do not have to have existing homes to be single story. What
would be done is to define the boundary, petition neighbors, and there would be the mail-in ballot as
described and the public hearing schedule. Just as you can place the single-story overlay, there is a
process to remove it as well.
He and Piu Ghosh answered questions about the process stating that the process was a neighborhood
community driven approach; the overall process gives staff that ability and they will help the property
owners with any questions or issues they would have in getting the application completed.
Chair Sun opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Recalled the story pole requirement in the city until about five years ago; everything worked fine with
the story poles; the property owner had to give copies of the home design to all immediate neighbors.
The elimination of the story pole requirement resulted in the need for single-story overlay. Presently
San Jose’s maximum height is 35 feet, resulting in some homes taller than the width of the lots;
Cupertino’s maximum height is 28 feet.
Said she felt it was important that they have single-story overlays or have a method to do this; it is
working in Sunnyvale and it gives vintage neighborhoods more control over what is happening. She
said she was a proponent of story poles and would welcome them back; however the current proposal
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 3
is the next best thing. Each neighborhood is unique, small or large and this is where they are headed.
She expressed her concern how to determine the renters vs. the owners and who is voting.
Jan Kucera, Oakview Lane:
Referred to a photo of the property; said they have been before the Commission and the City Council
two or three times, and he has presented the photo to dozens of neighbors, friends, attorneys and
architects and they are all scratching their heads saying that this house never should have happened.
The view into Mr. Miller’s lot with a swimming pool is the most offensive thing; the house looks right
into his swimming pool. Said they got signatures from 14 residents on Oak View Lane that were
opposed to the house; only one monster home was built in 1997. Ellen Yau said that privacy concerns
were taken care of by planting 6 foot and 8 foot trees which would remedy the concerns 20 years later.
Mr. Miller will be 97 years old in 20 years and it is ludicrous that he is expected to wait that long for
back yard privacy.
Not harmonious with immediate neighbors; even Mayor Cheng said it was a monster home, it is 5,500
sq. ft., speaker’s home is 1,700 sq. ft. expanded; Mr. Miller’s home is 1,500 sq. ft., there is a 5,500 sq.
ft. monster home in a single-story neighborhood; speaker’s home and Mr. Miller’s home were built in
1955; all the homes have been expanded somewhat, harmonious in scale and design.
Adverse visual impacts; The adverse visual impacts show it looks right into Mr. Miller’s back yard
pool, doesn’t meet it. Mr. Miller has had solar panels on his property since 1978; he is a retired
Lockheed scientist and was one of first in Cupertino to have solar panels heating his pool. Mr. Miller
was going to put electrical panels on the side of his house; this home would have wiped that out.
State Level DA says California law supersedes the solar panel law that Cupertino has on the books;
there is the danger that if this home is ever built we will see the San Jose DA and will make sure that
this home doesn’t get built. Why are we going to this effort? The City Council said they wanted a
single overlay done by December of last year; it is now April/March and they are still talking about it.
It was the residents that went through the whole process and the Council said they are going to have to
file suit.
Chair Sun closed the public hearing.
Com. Takahashi:
Said it was the beginning of his second term, and that agenda item is the one he was stuck on; said he
voted Yes on it, but in hindsight wished he had voted No. Said it is driven by the scale element; and
there was one speaker in the neighborhood who he felt had the best point, which was harmony in the
neighborhood, and harmony is being significantly disturbed by the proposed house in that
neighborhood.
Said it was a big step to mitigate that type of element and support the fact that it is a community driven
process. Only concern is it is relatively restrictive as written to be able to implement a single-story
overlay in terms of 75%, if you look at the requirements 75% now you have to have only one in four
houses being two-story; furthermore, is that two-story person going to vote Yes for single-story overlay
given they live in a two-story house? They may, because they may not want other two-story houses in
the neighborhood; but they may not because they may feel it targets them; 75% seems like it is going
to set the bar high for a community to be able to pull this off. Said he would question whether or not it
should be 66%, 2/3 vs. 3/4 with regard to single story homes currently in the neighborhood.
The downside would be creatingsome divisive environment for somebody that wantsthat second story;
and his hope would be that they would have discussions with their neighbors who are in favor of the
overlay and say they understand this; have planned a second story, and will work with everyone to
make sure it is still is in the spirit of the neighborhood, but that is an element that would come out of
this, but he fully supported the overlay and this question whether or not they should look at that
percentage.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 4
Com. Liu:
Said he supported that it is a community driven process and is important to him that people have a say
as to what happens to their neighborhood. Given that they allow having the procedures codified is very
important and when looking at this, a lot of this for him was considering the fairness aspect. He said
he supported the mail-in ballot procedure as opposed to a petition, the 2/3 threshold to pass seems
reasonable. In the implementation of this procedure, it is also done for folks who may want to campaign
against that for whatever reason just to be fair on both sides. How the boundaries are drawn is not
specifically defined, but he said he trusted staff to do the right thing. It is well thought out and avoids
many of the pitfalls of what some of the neighbors may have done in the past, but he said he generally
supported it.
Com. Fung:
Said he felt having a documented process, whether easy or hard, is always of value; he supported the
idea of trying to have a clear path. Also supportssuper majority decision making on this; it is important
to make sure there is clear sentiment being expressed by the community. Said he was satisfied with the
75% single story existing content provision if the intent of having the overlay is to reinforce the
neighborhood feel; then having a significant number of single-family homes. It is an important part of
that; there was some discussion about counting results which is challenging.
Said he was concerned that they want to have the number of people who participate in the voting be
meaningful but having to have 2/3 of the people whereas some people may not vote, having 2/3 yes,
that is a high bar, he said he didn’t know whether they want to consider looking at something like a
certain number of mail-in ballots must be returned for the result to be significant and at that point it is
super majority 2/3 or whatever. This is one of the points that Com. Liu brought up, there wasn’t any
mention of minimum or maximum size and he felt there is some value to that as well. Do you really
want to do this for four homes; or do you want to have to do it for 300? That may be an element as
well; perhaps imposing a size limit to make sense, that would also help make the voting be significant
and meaningful without creating an impossible barrier.
Said he felt as a proposed overlay becomes larger, it is going to become more difficult to get people to
return their ballots. From a processing standpoint about having a time limit; he said he felt having a
time limit from a time when the application starts, there are different steps but probably some value
there; what you wouldn’t want to do is have it be open-ended where somebody starts the process of
consideration, and then three years later they haven’t called for the mail-in ballot yet and it may have
the effect of locking people who were considering trying to make an application for a second-story
along the way. As this moves up to City Council, clarifying what resources the city will provide, a
number of the things that were requirements of what you need for submission are actually things that
will probablybe something that is built into as part of the fee for doing this. The fee report is important
as well; said he had no sense of the cost; but if doing fee recovery on the cost of a mail-in ballot, it is
likely not a small amount.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Commended staff on an excellent job responding to Council’s direction and putting together a clear
package. Said he sympathized with speaker Mr. Kucera as he too was raised in a small home in the
Palo Alto Hills which is now a 26,000 sq. ft. home with an indoor ice rink; a different world. It was
hard emotionally to see that but the world changes, times change; and then he moved to Cupertino into
a neighborhood where the Planning Dept. decided it was time to look at a zoning change, it was zoned
agricultural. Overall the intensive level of discussion helped him get to his neighbors and helped bring
the neighborhood together. Said he did not see this with a vote, as with a mail-in vote you don’t get
that kind of face-to-face, hash it out work throughissues which can be very expensive. That is aconcern
about the proposed process.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 5
Relative to the one-story overlay in general, there were many concerns several years ago about big
boxes, and the city spent a lot of time working through various concerns about side yard appearance,
windows, privacy, setback, and aesthetics; and they came up with a good R1 zone requirement. They
have a good R1 template for building a two-story house; if such a house is built in a neighborhood, it
will not have such a problem as some of the early slab sided big boxes did.
He expressed concern about some neighbors’ questionable behavior at various meetings in the past, as
well as fellow board members being subjected to disrespectful behavior when they went door to door,
which bordered on criminal behavior where the sheriff got involved. He said it demonstrated bad
behavior on the part of the neighborhood, and said that if those are the people who are leading this
effort, it presents a red flag in this particular instance. He said in general, with the one-story overlay
he was also concerned about relationships in the neighborhood. If someone comes in to a neighborhood
first and they want to build a two-story, they are going to feel penalized about the $7,000 penalty; that
probably isn’t a big deal considering the cost of houses these days; nonetheless it can attach an
emotional stigma to the person building that house and then also because that person is essentially
violating the intent of 2/3 of their neighbors, they may feel discriminated against because of their
architectural preferences.
Said times were changing in Cupertino; change is inevitable, but it doesn’t have to be a 26,000 sq. ft.
house with an indoor ice hockey rink; nonetheless people should be free to build a large beautiful home
and doesn’t necessarily need to diminish the neighborhood itself. People should be free to build a home
that they want to build within constraints of the setback, the privacy and the other concerns that have
been met in the R1 zoning.
Said another concern, which has not been discussed is the long-term effect on the city budget. In a
neighborhood of single-story homes, those homes are going to be valued less than homes in an R1 that
are not restricted with a one-story overlay. Over time those one-story homes will end up paying less
of their share of the city budget; whereas neighborhoods that allow two-story homes will pay more, but
the one-story homes will still enjoy the same fire service, street repair, sheriff’s services, etc. Said he
felt it is inequitable to have a one-story overlay, and he did not support it. He said he would like to see
Cupertino become a city that welcomes newcomers, immigrants and a variety of architectural styles
within the R1 designation. He said he would vote No.
Chair Sun:
Said for any decision they make, he tries to reach a consensus, however relative to today’s issue he
was inclined to side with the minority with Com. Paulsen. The realtors want to sell houses, and unless
there is a state law requiring them to do so, they don’t want to have to disclose the information; going
through this procedure is very hard.
For any second story house if they apply to the Planning Commission and City Council, there is a legal
procedure. It will generate a lot of work for city staff. If anyone wants to build a second story, they
will have to draw the boundary which may cause problems; the people may not agree with the drawing
and this gives the arbitrary power to some certain staff. Said he was not against city staff but legally it
is probably going to have some bias or unfairness; potentially you are going to cause some trouble for
city staff to make a decision for this one. Said he did not object to have more cases from other cities
that successfully do this kind of work but said it is extremely hard to imagine any procedure going this
way. For small size it doesn’t matter whether you have 70% or not; for the larger scale it is hard. For
the community driving this kind of thing it is good but for this particular one he said he personally did
not agree with going to the extreme for this kind of thing.
Cupertino community is involved in many facets; if there are all single-story homes in an area, the
neighbors don’t want a second-story home built in the same area; it is a risky procedure.
Com. Takahashi:
Said he commended the thinking of “let the process work.” While he generally agreed they want the
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 6
process to work, he felt it was a case where the R1 ordinance needs help in some cases and felt it was
going towards that direction. Said in this case they have seen and had an example of where the process
didn’t work because when he thought back to specifically that item and what he kept coming back to
as well it is all in the boundaries of R1 and so now it gets to a gray area of scale and harmony and that
is really gray and is not well defined. They feel like how could the Planning Commission say that this
very large house is of the same scale and harmony; yet they voted Yes. Said that while he agreed they
want the process to work, this is a case where the R1 ordinance needs help in some cases and it is going
forward in that direction.
Com. Liu:
Said he shared Chair Sun’s wish for harmony in the neighborhood, and felt that having a process in
place actually helps because even if it passes, even if they get 2/3, it still comes back to the Planning
Commission and the City Council makes the final determination. Said even if they didn’t have this
process it is not like the districts would go away; they would still be there; there just wouldn’t be a
codified process to do it and he felt the process is a way to capture the feelings of the residents; the fact
that there are at least 2/3 who want this. It then comes back to this body and then to City Council for
final determination; said he saw it as a vehicle for people to express their wishes; as opposed to that,
their decision doesn’t end with the voting or with this body but with the City Council.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he concurred with Chair Sun in that he liked to reach consensus on the Commission; when stating
he wanted to vote No it doesn’t mean he wants to be argumentative or divisive on the Commission.
Perhaps there are some things that were said that they could entertain since one of their roles is to distill
things for the City Council and one of them is Jennifer Griffin’s discussion about story poles and
notifying neighbors.
Said with Photo Shop software available he did not know if story poles were still needed; there is the
element of informing neighbors, and he recalled when they approved the big house that met 98% within
the envelope, it did meet the requirements but a former commissioner chided the applicant for not
talking with the neighbors very much. If you are going to live in a house for a long time, relationships
with neighbors are very important; it is detrimental to a neighborhood for someone to come in and build
a house that is a separate design without talking with the neighbors. Rather than have the one-story
overlay, perhaps they should recommend to the Council that they revisit the R1 with some components
of communication with neighbors; not that you want to give every neighbor the power over everyone
else because there are occasions when you cannot please everyone. Relationships are very important
for a community; they are important for stability in terms of people wanting to continue to live in a
neighborhood. Perhaps it could be relayed to the City Council that rather than having an overlay, they
revisit some of the aspects of the R1 that resulted in the suggestion for an overlay.
Com. Fung:
Said he supported the desire to have better communication; at the same time having this process and
having it be a super majority process where you clearly have to have that; he said he did not look at this
as a remedy for the problem of the one big house, or the three houses that have an issue. If this is a
group and super majority of the owners who want to maintain a certain style or flavor for that
neighborhood, this is a mechanism through which they can do that and having that be a regular defined
process where that can be initiated from the residents rather than coming to the Council and asking
them to bestow that. Said he felt it was a good thing; what makes it work is it is not 50% at one vote.
Said he had many of the same concerns, how you draw the line, how you draw the boundaries, these
things are all going to be very sensitive, but in general the model of having the ability to do this if this
is the right thing for the neighborhood, it is going to a be a hard thing to achieve for the people who
want to go through the process. Said he felt having the 75% content and the 2/3 majority would make
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 7
it be what that neighborhood wants.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
A super majority still results in a minority or super minority feeling that the other side won. Prop 13
has been kicked around for a long time and that was a 2/3 passed type of thing which made things
difficult. Said he preferred discussion and communication rather than an anonymous vote; because if
you are in the minority and suddenly find that 2/3 or 3/4 of your neighbors oppose what you want to
do, you really don’t have a chance to talk to them other than to pay your $7,000, hear your neighbors
complain about your home and have the discussion aired in the public forum of a Planning Commission
meeting, rather than sitting around a table or talking it out with neighbors on the front lawn.
Com. Takahashi:
Relative to communication and Com. Fung’s point he said he felt it would foster more communication,
especially if you are that minority wanting to build that two-story house because you are going to have
to talk to your neighbors, convince them and get their support; and it has to be done before going for a
conditional use permit. Through that process you are going to be hearing what their concerns are and
being able to try and work with your addition to be able to accommodate that. He said from his
perspective they should consider taking it to a vote.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Asked staff if they were present for all meetings with the R1a zoning; is that a good way to foster
communication or is an overlay a good way to foster communication?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she was present for part of it, but another planner continued it in the interest of facts; it was more
complicated because they were talking about more than one issue. Staff always encourages people to
talk to their neighbors whether they are building a fence or a house; they are reminded that neighbors
are there to help each other in times of emergencies, when family can’t and are encouraged to be as
friendly as possible. Many times staff finds themselves in the middle trying to mediate; but in this case
it is a single issue in a sense, a single-story or no single-story, but they believe that the process will
foster more dialog and probably more interest on the part of the applicant to give community support.
Those are staff’s thoughts and something that exists today in the rules; they are not proposing to change
that.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Asked staff about the long term city revenue aspects of a single-story overlay.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she has seen studies go both ways and that is not typically what a city does; the beauty of the
process is the neighbors decide; the community decides for themselves. This isn’t the city coming in
and saying this neighborhood will be single-story. It needs to come grass roots and in the long run a
CUP process will allow them to build two story. If the sentiment in the community or the single-story
neighborhood over time changes, and 2/3 of the people believe that they no longer want to be single-
story, they can change back. Staff wanted to make sure there was a process to undo it as well. Said the
City Council directed staff to have a process to allow this; they wanted to make sure it was clear; today
it is not clear.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he trusted staff; they did an excellent job and he was inclined to change his vote based on the
discussion because he felt it will promote communication in the neighborhood and hopefully long term
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 8
good feelings, which is more important than whether your house is two-story or not.
Com. Fung:
Said it was okay; when you look at some of the areas such as the area in Willow Glen with the palm
trees or areas in Palo Alto, the value in that neighborhood actually comes from that consistency. If
they choose to do that, it may actually be in the hands of the community. If they choose that they will
have greater uniformity that will be our mark. It is a high bar to climb if you wanted to do that. It is
good to have that process.
MOTION: Motion by Com. Takahashi, second by Com. Liu and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to
recommend to the City Council to approve the Municipal Code Amendment per
draft resolution MCA-2017-02; Amendment to recommend to City Council and staff to
investigate whether minimum and maximum numbers be applied to the overlay; friendly
amendment accepted by Com. Takahashi. Vote: 4-1-0, Chair Sun No.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said ultimately the goal is to have the majority of the neighborhood agree with it; to have votes come
back where a majority of the neighborhood either is not responding or is not agreeing, staff considers
that application no longer valid because you are back to rezoning properties where people don’t agree
with that when it was initially initiated by them. It is a high bar but after having talked, staff felt that a
majority of the neighborhood needs to agree to put these restrictions on themselves and granted they
may be property owners or not, but that is what you get when you live in aneighborhood; tenants cannot
vote for property owners. That’s essentially where we came from because what we struggle with is the
city moving forward with applications that don’t have neighborhood buy-in. The Commission itself is
free to recommend numbers but she explained their reason for staff’s recommendation.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
It is a high bar as Ms. Shrivastava suggested and therefore it would behoove a committee to meet
together before they come tothe city so they have a more cohesive proposal which fosters good relations
in a community.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
4. Planning Commission Work Program 2017-2018
Benjamin Fu, Asst. Director of Community Development, presented the staff report:
The staff report outlines the list of items to be forwarded to City Council. The work program is based
on the City Council adopted goals for the 2017-2018 fiscal year. Some projects consist of development
applications that will undergo the development review process. The eight items listed for inclusion in
the work plan include:
1. Single-Story Overlay
2. Amendment of Heart of City Specific Plan
3. Parking Incentive
4. Restaurant Outdoor Seating
5. Non-Medical Marijuana
6. Conceptual Plans
7. Vallco
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 9
8. Implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP)
Vice Chair Paulsen:
There are some suggestions from last year that the City Council took no action on. Asked staff for
explanation of the process which the Councilfollows: does it review then reject, or accept or just ignore
a suggestion from the Planning Commission?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Each year staff looks at suggestions received and forwards them to Council. The Commission did have
some suggestions they were able to answer that they already do or have satisfied the Commission. The
outstanding ones are forwarded with the intent to look at opportunities to further that discussion; e.g.
the trees in the Heart of the City (HOC) would be the next time it is amended. They would not do a
complete redo of the HOC just to answer that question because the Council has given staff an extensive
work plan and they want to ensure they are doing it thoughtfully and on time. Those items are still in
the work plan to be addressed as and when opportunities come up. Said some of those will be done but
there are also big ticket items such as the EDSP, some elements of that will come to the Planning
Commission and because of them will involve how they look at retail areas that are not functioning as
well because of their configuration or they are not suited to today’s retail climate, and could they be
opportunities to convert them to incubator space that could encourage new businesses and startups.
Another one would be looking at the Bubb Road area to transform it into an innovation arts district and
to look at how it might be set up. It is quite a conundrum; other cities have been studied, and usually
when they do that, it is when they have vacant building space they are trying to fill. In our case we are
trying to do the opposite, looking and talking to people and trying to figure out what are the ingredients
of such a district, what are the things we want, we like about it as it is, what are the things we want to
use to enhance it. Said the Planning Commission would be part of that discussion as well.
The City Council is also interested in having a community citizens’ advisory committee that could
provide guidance for the Vallco site because the city is required to create a specific plan for it by the
middle of next year by state law because it is a housing element site. Staff hopes to receive Council
guidance so they can work on it this year so that they have some time to get to the second part, which
is creating the specific plan.
Said they were waiting for Council’s guidance to staff on what they would like to see. The specific
plan will come to the Planning Commission prior to going to the Council and will directly be
recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff will bring the Commission parts of it and all of it
for discussion once they know what that general guidance is.
Com. Liu:
Said part of their role is to supply the City Council withinformation to help with policy making. Traffic
is something they consider in the land use decisions. He suggested that the Planning Commission host
or sponsor a public workshop on the state of vehicular traffic; there are things on the Safe Routes to
School, and Bike Master Plan, but much of the transport moving around here happens by car.
Said his thoughts were for a traffic forum where the city traffic engineers share that with the public;
there is a lot of discussion out there; has it gotten worse, etc.? He said he felt having the discussions
with data would be helpful and they could discuss their projections and is a historical perspective
because he has heard people talking about traffic. It would be good to open it up to the public to hear
from residents about what works well for them in their neighborhood; what needs improvement and
general ideas, etc.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Questioned if the goal was to better understand mobility in general; how do traffic engineers look at
this because sometimes you feel like it is an alien science and you don’t understand what they are
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 10
looking at as compared to how you live your life? Suggested time to work on it and then talk about
how best to address it; it would involve another department, and the potential of having a consultant
come in and help. Today we don’t only talk about one mode and it is important for us all to understand
how we look at mobility; that’s the new word that says how do people go about their daily lives and
how can we help them to do it in the best way possible. The State has new laws that tell us here is how
you should be looking at it and it can be very informative; she encouraged the Commission to provide
more input to help staff figure out how best to do it.
Com. Liu:
Said he had in mind two elements; one is the public education element in terms of how professional
traffic engineers look at this and what are the constraints that the city has that the average resident may
not have. Said he also wanted people to have an opportunity to share their anecdotal types of things;
traffic is one of those things we all experience and it is probably the biggest annoyance; having a forum
to present the Council with that kind of information is the goal.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he was pleased to hear Com. Liu’s comments; one of his suggestions to be presented was that they
consider following Palo Alto’s example and become the Planning and Transportation Commission
because when Com. Takahashi and he were members of the Bike and Ped Commission they dealt with
a lot of traffic related issues, and issues such as the timing of a stoplight, width of a bike lane; but there
was no regular mechanism for the public to have input into the widening of a road, construction of an
interchange, etc. There are hearings about those issues but there are so many, development and traffic
go hand in hand; development influences traffic and vice versa. He said he felt if they expanded their
role to include traffic, they would give the public more opportunity to have input in a regular
understandable forum and also for public education. It would also give them a chance to have some
oversight for the traffic engineers. He said they need to perhaps look at putting the brakes on cars so
to speak and look at other modalities. It is expensive and long term, but a former mayor is very involved
in this and it is the future and he felt it would behoove them to have it be part of their regular mandate.
Com. Fung:
Parks and Rec is an interesting area to look at; they have often had workshop exercises, but as a
commission they can look at issues and this particular one is something that belongs to the Council.
They may want to define it and send it down; it is a good venue for that discussion; and as a community
want to have that.
Chair Sun:
Said the Planning Commission agrees that this kind of platform would be where they could hold some
forums.
Com. Fung:
Said it was difficult for the City Council to have a set of round tables and discussions.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they will determine the best way to bring this up because the Council has already had their study
session, but will forward this to the city manager. In either case the goal is to have a forum; may have
opportunities in future years to continue with new information on how does traffic increase and what
contributes to it; how can you resolve it; how do different modes affect vehicular traffic; have heard
talk of community shuttles, other ways of getting around.
Com. Takahashi:
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 11
Getting ideas on the table to help mitigate traffic like the schools the one that comes to mind; with
traffic it is all about everyone trying to get to the same place at the same time.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said it would be a good way because staff could inform the Planning Commission of all the work being
done; the Public Works Dept. has one person dedicated to a Safe Routes to School Program and they
are meeting with parents/students team. A lot of good work has begun.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said they need a commission to look at that; Public Works is a big spender of city money but they have
no oversight in terms of the Commission. Sometimes they tend to look toward their focus on level of
service, and Caltrans is changing; but sometimes traffic engineers tend to look at car traffic; it would
be a good opportunity if there was a Planning and Transportation Commission to address these things
on an ongoing basis as needed. Having been involved with the Parks Master Plan, they spent a great
deal of time talking with Public Works; their staff has a depth of knowledge and information, but it is
difficult for them to speak with the community.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said it would give them a chance to showcase the work that is being done on that front and staff may
get new ideas. It won’t be immediate but staff will figure out the best way around it. She asked if there
was interest in forming a subcommittee.
Chair Sun:
Said each year the Planning Commissions conducts a study session to address projects individually for
a more comprehensive understanding. Cupertino talks about traffic a lot but didn’t focus on one thing.
If they can solve the major cross street issue it can solve a lot of traffic issues. Said he did not know if
the city will study the particular cross section this year or next year. Last year there was a lot of focus
on the back, but not sure of the status for the bike riders. Said they can encourage alternative traffic
either by providing a citywide shuttle or free small bus; the city can work on providing an intra-city
traffic solution to eliminate a lot of traffic within the city.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said there was a bike plan adopted last year; there are some exciting projects; Council has allocated $2
million in the 2016-17 budget; not sure how much is proposed for the next budget for protected lanes
on Stevens Creek and don’t know how much is proposed for the next budget to put in protected lanes
on Stevens Creek and maybe as part of this transportation forum. She said they could help the
Commission understand all the initiatives that are in place and go from there for more ideas.
The Oaks Project is a housing element site and they have the ability to bring in an application that
conforms to the General Plan; people also have the ability, and last year applied for General Plan
Amendment authorization. That process should anyone want to apply would first go to City Council
and the Council decides if they are allowed to make an application. Once they make an application it
will be brought to the Planning Commission for a recommendation prior to it going to Council. That
is the typical path. For any other large projects, they will come to the Planning Commission even if
they have to go to Council ahead of time. At this point there are no applications for the Oaks, so once
they know what kind of application that is, it will either have to go for an authorization or provide the
necessary studies and then bring it to the Planning Commission.
Com. Liu:
Said as a follow up to Chair Sun’s question, last year they had a lot of people who weren’t previously
interested in land use and development, study that issue which was a good thing. He said he was
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 12
interested in increasing the number and diversity of people who are involved in the process. There are
mechanisms for them to proactively reach out and get the sense of input from residents on what they
would like to see, not necessarily tied to a specific project, and perhaps in a forum where they are not
limited to three-minute presentations.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said once they hear from applicants who are anxious and willing to set up meetings hosted by the
Planning Commission theywill be able to talk about the site, the proposal and what the housing element
says. If the Planning Commission is interested in having more round table discussions, staff will work
with them to hold them, instead of the regular meetings set up.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Said he would like to recommend that the Parkside Trails development be preserved as open space.
There is a demand for open space nearby Cupertino; Parkside Trails has a place that has potential for
restoration and use to meet some of that demand for open space; it is a geological and technical
nightmare to build on that property. A density transfer where the developer, the owner of the Parkside
Trails parcel would be able to partner with the Oaks or another development for a denser development
there and share the profit so that he would get fair profit from having purchased the Parkside Trails; the
city would get open space; there would be less cars in the foothills where the trucks are and would also
get perhaps more creative, innovative projects at the Oaks.
Aarti Shrivastava:
As a theoretical setup the Planning Commission can, but for items that are ultimately going to come to
the Commission as adjudicatory items it may not be, and it will be left to the lawyers. There are some
nearby cities looking at it because they are trying to get a school site and trying to figure out how they
take those development rights and transfer them so that the property can be available. There are
examples of those that are done. The way it is transferred causes issues too; it is called transfer of
development rights (TDR) and we could always look for opportunities or float that up as a potential
idea or process, should there be some significant community benefits associated with the change.
Chair Sun:
Said there is a need for them to restrict themselves to express their opinions on particular projects before
the project comes to their committee; their job is outreach to the community, and to help City Council
collect more input as they may have expressed their opinion already.
Com. Liu:
Questioned whether a subcommittee should be formed to work with staff on a traffic forum; how does
staff recommend moving forward?
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she would be happy to listen to the Planning Commission if there were two members interested;
they can work with staff and make it work.
Said they could forward it to the Council and say that there was interest in having a forum on mobility,
including traffic. The idea was to understand how these studies are done; what is the meaning behind
them; what’s the goal; trying to understand how traffic works.
Com. Fung:
Said that is very close to the kind of scope they are trying to do should there be an advisory committee.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 13
Aarti Shrivastava:
If there is an advisory committee for Vallco, they will be talking about these things. If the City Council
feels it is a worthy goal, staff would work towards it because it would help to inform the community
about how this works so that we are not speaking in different languages and then also inform us because
we hear from individual community members. Said at least for the coming year it would be one forum
that they will put together with more data as it is requested. Said she would talk to the Public Works
Dept. and make sure that they have the scope and the ability and try to put some sort of budget together
should they need consultants; staff time would not be part of the cost.
Vice Chair Paulsen:
Suggested asking City Council if they would be interested in having occasional public forums on traffic;
change the structure of the Planning Commission to have a subcommittee on traffic or change the
mission of the overall Commission to become a Planning and Transportation Commission.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she could forward comments to the Planning Commission for their consideration.
Com. Fung:
Said he felt it would be interesting to reach out to the Director of Public Works to see whether the
Commission is a good venue for issues other than traffic he would like to discuss in Public Works. He
said when he took the Public Works tour, he saw many things they were working on that have an
opportunity for public input. Also noted that the Council had not taken a stand on the 20% outdoor
seating issue from the previous year.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she could reach out to the Director regarding Public Works issues. The 20% outdoor seating issue
is in the work program; as they look at the commercial ordinance, they will look at it as well. She said
they were now restricting restaurants. Said they had outreach as part of the EDSP and they did have
discussions; the bulk of those discussions form the basis of the plan; potentially what could be done is
if the Commission is interested, they will see if the Economic Development Manager can help them
understand how it came about; what are the initiatives in it, since a good part of it will be seen as part
of a project. There is also the Economic Development Committee that oversees that role.
Com. Fung:
Because this is in effect a type of new draft, having that come as an agenda item here, a staff presentation
on it would be ideal, but that actually may be the place where following that with a forum might be an
interesting thing; when people have an opportunity to discuss the draft in its more final form.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they can look at that because they want to make sure that a forum does need a lot of resources and
staff will work with the Commission; they may be having forums on the three elements and it might be
good to wait until they present what they have and are starting that process, then definitely the EDSP
will be the background that will be presented.
Com. Fung:
Said having a follow up to that report is a valid and important input for the City Council when they
consider it.
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 14
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they would invite the Planning Commission to that forum and figure out the best way to set it up
because she does not know how the Council wants to set it up. The elements of the EDSP they are
going to follow up on are the incubator; the mobile services being another aspect and the mobile
services such as food trucks and dentists on wheels. Said they want to be responsive to their brick and
mortar businesses but are trying to figure out the best approach to allow such businesses; third is the
innovation arts.
Chair Sun opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said she has been attending City Council meetings and Planning Commission meetings since Rancho
Rinconada annexed in 2000. The Planning Commission is a very important Commission secondary to
the City Council. The Planning Commission serves at the desire of the City Council. In terms of what
the Planning Commission does as its month-to-month activities it is very important; if there are any
changes to what the Commission does, it has to be defined by the City Council. She said there were
some changes in the last 5 to 6 years in the matrix studies that happened which actually changed a lot
of the balance of how decisions and power werehandled in the city, and she felt they need to be cautious
that they look at the role of the Planning Commission and if there are any suggested changes to it, that
has to come from the City Council. Said she felt in this situation the Planning Commission has every
right to recommend, come up with items to discuss. Having the forum on transportation is helpful but
renaming the Planning Commission is a major thing and has to be done by the City Council, with public
input. If that is considered, she suggested having a permanent standing separate Transportation
Committee. Relative to the proposed mobile services, she said it was important to know where the
vans/trucks will be located and where they will be conducting business; not on private roads or parked
on the side of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Chair Sun closed the public hearing.
Following discussion, it was noted that a motion was not required; staff would forward the summary of
items discussed to the City Council.
Summary of Items to be included in the 2017-2018 Work Plan, to be forwarded to City Council:
Adopt the work plan items as presented with suggested amendments, including traffic workshop.
density transfer which is complicated
Interaction with Public Works
The City Council doesn’t need to authorize a presentation on EDSP.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: No report
Economic Development Committee Meeting: No report
Housing Commission: No report
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners: March 1
st - Mayor reported on State of the City.
Bike and Ped Com.: reported 2 new commissioners, Earth Day April 30, encouraged people to join
CEEF (Cupertino Education Endowment Foundation) – program to encourage people riding bikes and
donate to schools … Cupertino Education Endowment Foundation; Focus on education outreach to
kids, safety on bikes
Sustainability Com.:Angela Chen reported on a Clean Energy Committee; participated in Earth Day;
Presented zero waste policy for city
Cupertino Planning Commission March 14, 2017 15
Public Safety Com.: Working on gun control issue.
Public Education: Women’s self-defense classes being held.
Outreach for Public Safety Commission: has 2 grass roots community neighborhood watch and block
leaders.
Library Com.: The library does not allow strollers inside the premises which restricts usage of the library.
Parks and Rec: Suggestion to ask city for budget.
Teen Com.: Reported attendance at Environmental Summit in San Francisco; Need for more marketing
Fine Arts: Trying to promote young artist in 2017 and 2018; encourage special needs children artists to
allocate some city resources to help
Com. Paulsen:Reported a resident contacted him about possible expansion of the Forum near her house;
said he could not make promises; explained how planning process works which she was not familiar with.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:No oral report.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on April 11, 2017, at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: ________/s/Elizabeth Ellis_______________________________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Date:April 25, 2017
Application Name:Capital Improvement Program
Applicant:City of Cupertino
Application Summary:Review of the Five Year Capital Improvement Program FY
2018-2022 (2017-2018 to 2021-2022) for conformity to the City’s
General Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission:
1. Find that the Proposed Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General
Plan per the draft resolution (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
Each year the City Council adopts a five-year spending plan for capital improvements
throughout the City. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is critical because it
prioritizes significant city expenditures on capital projects of importance to the City.
The City appropriates funding for the first year of the CIP as part of the adoption of the
budget for the next fiscal year. Funding is not committed for years two through five of
the program, as project priorities may change and project schedules may accelerate or
decelerate.
State law and the Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 2.32.070.C – Attachment 2)
require the Planning Commission to review the CIP for consistency with the City’s
General Plan (General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040). The City Council is
responsible for setting CIP projects and funding priorities. The role of the Planning
Commission for this item is only to review the CIP for consistency with the City’s
General Plan.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
Capital Improvement Program, FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 April 25, 2017
The Proposed CIP FY 2018-2022 is attached (Attachments 3). Attachment 4 lists the
proposed first year capital projects and staff notes describing how the projects relate to
the General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040.
City staff has independently studied the Proposed CIP and has determined that the CIP
is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the exemption in Title 14-California
Code of Regulations, §15061(b) (3), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that this CIP budget action will have a significant effect on the environment
due to the approval of the budget, and does not involve approval of any specific project
that may have a significant effect on the environment.
Each project of the Proposed CIP projects will be evaluated for the application of CEQA
to it and, as applicable, each project will conduct the appropriate level of environmental
analysis.
DISCUSSION:
General Plan Consistency
Please refer to Attachment 5 for excerpts of pertinent General Plan: Community Vision
2015 – 2040 policies and text. The General Plan consistency findings are summarized
below for the five-year CIP:
1- Projects that improve the safety and function of the City's primary circulation
system.
See Community Vision 2040 Goals M-2, M-3, M-5, and M-9 and Community Vision
Policies M-10.1 and M-10.3.
2016 Bicycle Plan Implementation
ADA Improvements
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements
Bikeway Enhancements & Wayfinding Plan
City Bridge Maintenance Repairs
McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Improvement - Phase 2
McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Installation - Rose Blossom to Hwy 85 Overcrossing
Traffic Signal: Foothill/I-280 SB Off-ramp
Capital Improvement Program, FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 April 25, 2017
2- Transportation projects that manage neighborhood traffic, decrease reliance on
the usage of private cars, promote pedestrian activity and provide Safe Routes
to Schools.
See Community Vision 2040 Goals M-2, M-3, M-5, and Community Vision Policies
M-10.1 and M-10.3.
2016 Bicycle Plan Implementation
ADA Improvements
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements
Bikeway Enhancements & Wayfinding Plan
McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Improvement - Phase 2
McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Installation - Rose Blossom to Hwy 85 Overcrossing
Sidewalk Improvements - Orange & Byrne
Street Light Installation - Randy Ln. & Larry Wy.
Retaining Wall Repair - Cordova Rd.
Retaining Wall Replacement - Regnart Rd.
3- Projects that maintain the usability of and/or expand the capacity,
performance, and efficiency of the City's public infrastructure and facilities.
See Community Vision 2040 Goals INF-1, and Community Vision Policy INF-1.1,
and Community Vision 20140 Strategy INF-1.1.1 and INF-1.1.2.
Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center
HVAC System Upgrade - Server/Hardware Rooms @ City Facilities
Outfall Repair & Slope Stabilization - Regnart Rd.
Service Center - New Administration Building
Service Center-Shed No. 3 Improvement
Storm Drain Improvements - Byrne Ave. & Stevens Creek Blvd.
Storm Drain Improvements - Foothill Blvd. & Cupertino Rd.
Storm Drain Improvements - Homestead Rd.
4- Storm drainage projects that create and implement plans to develop and
maintain an effective and efficient stormwater system.
See Community Vision 2040 Goals INF-4, and Community Vision Policy INF-4.1,
and Community Vision 20140 Strategies INF-4.1.1, INF-4.1.2 and INF-4.1.3.
Outfall Repair & Slope Stabilization - Regnart Rd.
Capital Improvement Program, FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 April 25, 2017
Storm Drain Improvements - Byrne Ave. & Stevens Creek Blvd.
Storm Drain Improvements - Foothill Blvd. & Cupertino Rd.
Storm Drain Improvements - Homestead Rd.
Storm Drain Master Plan Update
5- Projects that maintain the usability of the City's parks and recreation
inventory.
See Community Vision 2040 Goals M-2, M-3, RPC-1 and RPC-2, and Community
Vision Policies RPC-2.1, RPC-2.5, RPC-3.1, RPC-4.1, RPC-6.3, RPC-7.3, M-1.3, LU-4.2,
and Community Vision 20140 Strategy RPC-2.5.2.
Citywide Park and Recreation Master Plan
Inclusive Play Area – Planning
International Cricket Ground - Feasibility Study
Jollyman Park Pathway Installation
Lawrence-Mitty Park
Linda Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan
McClellan Ranch - Construct Trash Enclosure
McClellan Ranch - Community Garden Improvements - Conceptual Planning &
Design
McClellan West-Parking Lot Improvement
Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study
Memorial Park Phase 1 – Construction
Memorial Park Phase 1 – Design
Monta Vista Park – Renovation Master Plan
Portal Park - Renovation Master Plan
Recreation Facilities Monument Signs
Senior Center Repairs
Senior Center Walkway Replacement
Sport Center Upgrades
Stevens Creek Bank Repair - South of SCB-Conceptual Design
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Chain Master Plan - McClellan Rd. to Stevens Creek
Blvd.
Stocklmeir House-New Sewer Lateral
Tennis Court Resurfacing - Various Parks
Wilson Park - Renovation Master Plan
Capital Improvement Program, FY 2017/18 – 2021/22 April 25, 2017
6- Projects that maximize the use of native plants and minimize water use.
See Community Vision Policies LU-4.2 and ES-7.11.
Citywide Park and Recreation Master Plan
Lawrence-Mitty Park
Linda Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan
McClellan West-Parking Lot Improvement
Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study
Memorial Park Phase 1 – Construction
Memorial Park Phase 1 – Design
Monta Vista Park – Renovation Master Plan
Portal Park - Renovation Master Plan
Stevens Creek Bank Repair - South of SCB-Conceptual Design
Street Median Irrigation & Plant Replacement
Wilson Park - Renovation Master Plan
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be considered by the City Council at
the June 6, 2017 budget adoption meeting.
__________________________________________________
Submitted by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works
Prepared by: Erick Serrano, Associate Planner
Approved by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1- Draft Resolution
2- Municipal Code Section 2.32.070.C
3- Proposed Capital Improvement Program - FY 2018 (2017-2018) – First-Year Projects
4- Matrix of CIP Projects and General Plan Consistency Notes
5- Excerpts of General Plan Policies and Text
Capital Improvement Program
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
FINDING THE PROPOSED FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FISCAL
YEARS 2017-18 TO 2021-22 CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Name:Capital Improvement Program
Applicant:City of Cupertino
Location:Citywide
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received the proposed five-year capital
improvement program, fiscal years 2017-18 to 2021-22, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the Planning Commission finds in accordance with CMC Section 2.32.070C, that the Capital
Improvement Program is consistent with the City of Cupertino’s General Plan.
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based
and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning the Capital Improvement Program as set forth in
the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2017, and are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April 2017, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
Benjamin Fu Don Sun
Asst. Director of Community Development Chair, Planning Commission
Cupertino, CA Municipal Code
CHAPTER 2.32: PLANNING COMMISSION*
Section
2.32.010 Established.
2.32.020 Term of office of members.
2.32.030 Vacancy or removal.
2.32.040 Chairperson.
2.32.050 Meetings.
2.32.060 Amendments-Records required.
2.32.070 Powers and functions.
2.32.080 Procedural rules.
* For statutory provisions regarding the establishment of a city planning commission, see Gov. Code § 65100 et seq. -- See Title 17,
Zoning.
* Prior ordinance history: Ords. 5, 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 167, 1166, 1213, 1321, 1459, 1549 and 1697.
2.32.010 Established.
The City Planning Commission is established. The City Planning Commission shall consist of five members, none of whom shall be
officials or employees of the City and none of whom shall cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any
other member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The five members shall be
appointed by the City Council. Each member shall be a qualified elector in and resident of the City. Each member shall receive
compensation as established by resolution of the City Council.
(Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998)
2.32.020 Term of Office of Members.
A. Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of the members of the Planning Commission shall
be four years and shall end on January 30th of the year their term is due to expire. No commissioner shall serve more than two
consecutive terms except that a commissioner may serve more than two consecutive terms if he or she has been appointed to the
Commission to fill an unexpired term of less than two years.
B. The appointment, reappointment and rules governing incumbent members of the Commission are governed by Resolution No.
7571 of the Cupertino City Council.
(Ord. 1974, § 4 (part), 2006; Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998)
2.32.030 Vacancy or Removal.
Any appointed member may be removed by a majority vote of the City Council. If a vacancy occurs other than by expiration of a
term, it shall be filled by the Mayor's appointment for the unexpired portion of the term.
(Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998)
2.32.040 Chairperson.
The commission shall elect its Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson from among its members. The terms of the Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson shall be for one year.
(Ord. 2015, § 7, 2008; Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998)
2.32.050 Meetings.
A. The City Planning Commission shall hold regular meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at six forty-five
p.m. and may adjourn any regular meeting to a date certain, which shall be specified in the order of adjournment and when so
adjourned, such adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. Such adjourned meetings may likewise be adjourned and
any so adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes.
City Planning Commission meetings that fall on legal holidays shall automatically be moved to the following day.
B. Special meetings of the Commission may be called at any time by the Chairperson or by any three or more members of the
Commission upon written notice being given to all members of the Commission and received by them at least twenty-four hours prior
to the meeting, unless notice requirement is waived in writing by the member.
(Ord. 1942, 2004; Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998)
2.32.060 Amendments-Records Required.
A. The affirmative vote of not less than a majority of its total voting members is required to approve a recommendation to amend
the zoning ordinance; the affirmative vote of a majority present with a quorum present is required to take any other action.
B. The Commission shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions, and shall render such reports to the Council
as may be required by ordinance or resolution, and shall submit an annual report to the Mayor.
To accomplish this the Commission shall be furnished with a secretary employed by the City to keep accurate records of the
Commission. All records so prepared by the secretary shall be filed with the City Clerk.
(Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998)
2.32.070 Powers and Functions.
The powers and functions of the City Planning Commission shall be as follows:
A. Prepare, periodically review, and revise as necessary, the General Plan;
B. Implement the General Plan through actions including, but not limited to, the administration of specific plans and zoning,
subdivisions, and sign ordinances;
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);
D. Endeavor to promote public interest in, comment upon, and understanding of the General Plan, and regulation relating to it;
E. Consult and advise with public officials and agencies, public utility companies, civic, educational, professional, and other
organizations and citizens generally concerning implementation of the General Plan;
F. Promote the coordination of local plans and programs with the plans and programs of other agencies;
G. Perform other functions as the City Council provides including conducting studies and preparing plans other than those required
or authorized by state law;
H. Establish as needed a standing subcommittee of the Commission for Design Review. The Planning Commission shall decide
appeals of the Design Review Committee for the purposes of conducting design review on projects that properly come before the
Design Review Committee for review, and conduct design review of a project as required by Chapters 2.90, 19.132, 19.134 and of the
Cupertino Municipal Code.
(Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998)
2.3 2 .080 Proce dural Rule s .
The P lanning Commission may adopt from time to time such rule s of procedure as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its
powers and duties. Such rules shall be subject to approval by the Council before becoming effective. All such rules shall be kept on
file with the Chairperson of the P lanning Commission and the Mayor and a copy thereof shall be furnished to any person upon
request.
(Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998)
C I P FY 2018
Capital Improvement Program
Proposed FY 2018 Planned FY 2019-2022
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Timm Borden, Director
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE ~ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3266
(408) 777-3354 ~ FAX (408) 777-3333
City of Cupertino Page 2 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Completed Projects .......................................................................................................................... 10
Current and Proposed CIP Projects ....................................................................................................... 14
Priority 1 Projects ................................................................................................................................ 15
2016 Bike Plan Implementation ...................................................................................................... 16
ADA Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 18
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements ............................................................................ 20
Bikeway Enhancements and Wayfinding Plan ............................................................................ 22
City Bridge Maintenance Repairs .................................................................................................. 24
Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan ................................................................................ 26
Fiber Network Expansion to Service Center ................................................................................ 28
Inclusive Play Area - Planning ....................................................................................................... 30
Lawrence-Mitty Park ....................................................................................................................... 32
McClellan Ranch – Community Garden Improvements – Conceptual Planning & Design . 34
McClellan Ranch – Construct Trash Enclosure ............................................................................ 36
McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot Improvement ..................................................................... 38
McClellan Road Sidewalk Improvements – Phase 2 ................................................................... 40
Outfall Repair & Slope Stabilization - Regnart Rd. ..................................................................... 42
Recreation Facilities Monument Signs .......................................................................................... 44
Retaining Wall Repair – Cordova Road ........................................................................................ 46
Retaining Wall Replacement – Regnart Road .............................................................................. 48
Senior Center Repairs ...................................................................................................................... 50
Service Center - Replacement Administration Building with EOC .......................................... 52
Service Center Shed No. 3 Improvements .................................................................................... 54
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Chain Master Plan – McClellan to Stevens Creek Blvd. ......... 56
Storm Drain Improvements – Foothill Blvd./Cupertino Rd. ..................................................... 58
Storm Drain Master Plan Update .................................................................................................. 60
Street Median Irrigation & Plant Replacement ............................................................................ 62
City of Cupertino Page 3 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Tennis Court Resurfacing – Various Parks ................................................................................... 64
Priority 2 Projects ................................................................................................................................ 66
McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Installation – Rose Blossom Dr. to Hwy 85 Overcrossing .............. 68
Senior Center Walkway Replacement ........................................................................................... 70
Sidewalk Improvements – Orange & Byrne ................................................................................. 72
Priority 3 Projects ................................................................................................................................ 74
Capital Project Support ................................................................................................................... 76
CIP Preliminary Planning & Design.............................................................................................. 78
International Cricket Ground - Feasibility Study ........................................................................ 80
Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study ............................................................................. 82
Sports Center – Upgrades ............................................................................................................... 84
Stevens Creek Bank Repair – South of SCB – Conceptual Design ............................................ 86
Stocklmeir House – New Sewer Lateral ....................................................................................... 88
Storm Drain Improvements - Byrne Ave. & Stevens Creek Blvd. ............................................ 90
Street Light Installation – Annual Infill ........................................................................................ 92
Street Light Installation – Randy Ln. & Larry Wy. ...................................................................... 94
Traffic Signal: Foothill/I-280 SB Off-ramp .................................................................................... 96
Priority 4 Projects ................................................................................................................................ 98
Jollyman Park Pathway Installation ............................................................................................ 100
Linda Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan ............................................................................... 102
Memorial Park Phase 1 – Design ................................................................................................. 104
Memorial Park Phase 1 - Construction ....................................................................................... 106
Monta Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan .............................................................................. 108
Portal Park – Renovation Master Plan ........................................................................................ 110
Storm Drain Improvements - Homestead Road ........................................................................ 112
Wilson Park - Renovation Master Plan ....................................................................................... 114
Development In-Lieu Contributions............................................................................................. 116
De Anza Blvd./McClellan/Pacifica Signal Modification ........................................................... 118
Monument Gate Way Signs (4) .................................................................................................... 120
North Stelling Rd./ I-280 Bridge Pedestrian Lighting & Upgrades......................................... 122
City of Cupertino Page 4 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bandley Signal and Median Improvements ................................... 124
Unfunded CIP Projects .................................................................................................................... 126
Blackberry Farm - Golf Course Renovation ............................................................................... 128
Blackberry Farm – Play Area Improvements ............................................................................. 129
Blackberry Farm – Splash Pad ...................................................................................................... 130
Civic Center Master Plan Implementation ................................................................................. 131
Implement Storm Drain Master Plan Priorities ......................................................................... 132
Jollyman Park Irrigation Upgrade ............................................................................................... 133
McClellan Ranch – Barn Renovation ........................................................................................... 134
McClellan Ranch – Community Garden Improvements Construction .................................. 135
McClellan Ranch Preserve Stevens Creek Access ..................................................................... 136
Memorial Park – Tennis Court Restroom Replacement ........................................................... 137
Monta Vista Park –Play Areas ...................................................................................................... 138
Portal Park Phase 1 – Design & Construction ............................................................................ 139
Stevens Creek Trail Bridge over UPRR ....................................................................................... 140
Stocklmeir Legacy Farm – Phase 1 Improvement ..................................................................... 141
Fiscal Year 2017-2018 ............................................................................................................................. 142
Wilson Park Phase 1 – Design & Construction .......................................................................... 142
Appendix: Five-Year CIP Summary .............................................................................................. 143
City of Cupertino Page 5 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
City of Cupertino Page 6 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Introduction
May 1, 2017
Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council:
Subject: Fiscal Year 2016/17 CIP Status Report and Fiscal Year 2017/18 CIP Proposal
I am pleased to provide you the following comprehensive document that includes descriptions
and the status of currently budgeted projects as well as proposed projects in the categories
described below. Project scopes, budgets, and schedules are shown for all incomplete but
previously budgeted projects. Please note that the Estimated Project Cost for each project
reflects all of the anticipated costs to deliver the project.
Newly Proposed Projects
New projects proposed within the five-year CIP are as follows:
Recreation and Community Services Facilities
• Inclusive Play Area – Planning
• International Cricket Ground – Feasibility Study
• Jollyman Park - Pathway Installation
• Linda Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan
• Senior Center Repairs
• Senior Center - Walkway Replacement
Administration Facilities
• Service Center New Administration Building & EOC
Storm Drainage
• Outfall Repair & Slope Stabilization-Regnart Rd.
Transportation Facilities
• Street Light Installation – Annual Infill
• McClellan Road Sidewalk Installation (Rose Blossom-Hwy 85)
• Street Light Installation – Randy Ln. & Larry Wy.
Development In-Lieu Contributions
The Development In-Lieu Contributions section creates a vehicle for the Council and the public
to track these contributions received from development. The contributions are typically “fair-
share” contributions towards a larger project. The projects are therefore on-hold until the
funding gap is closed by other contributing developments or by augmentations with City funds.
Unfunded Projects
City of Cupertino Page 7 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Although these projects are not proposed for funding at this time, through a community, City
Council, or staff proposal, they are tracked in this budget document.
FY 2017 CIP Accomplishments
Notable accomplishments in FY2016-17 include the following:
Completion of the following projects:
• Blacksmith Shop Forge Restoration
• City Hall Turf Reduction
• DeAnza Blvd. Monument Sign
• Pasadena Avenue Public Improvements (between Granada and Olive)
• Pedestrian Master Plan
• Quinlan Community Center Fire Alarm Control Panel Replacement
• Service Center New Administration Building Feasibility Study
• Sidewalk Renovation on Stevens Creek Blvd. (from Stelling to De Anza)
• Sport Center Tennis Court Resurfacing (18 Courts)
• Monument Gateway Signs (De Anza at Bollinger, Development In Lieu Contribution)
Projects that have met significant progress milestones include:
• Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center: complete through Construction
Documents phase;
• McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot Improvement: complete through Design
Development phase;
• McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Improvement – Phase 2: design completed and resident/owner
outreach in progress;
• Recreation Facilities Monument Signs – Construction Documents phase started
• Retaining Wall Repair-Cordova Rd. and Retaining Wall Replacement-Regnart Rd.:
complete through Construction Documents phase;
• Service Center Shed No. 3 Improvement: complete through Construction Documents
phase;
• Storm Drain Improvements – Foothill Blvd. & Cupertino Rd.: Construction started;
Two projects that were included in FY 2017 CIP are recommended for defunding and to be
moved to the Unfunded list, as they are subject to the outcome of the Stevens Creek Corridor
Park Chain Master Plan:
• Blackberry Golf Course Renovations - $1,043,000
• Blackberry Farm – Splash Pad - $70,000
Following are the project description and budget sheets for the five-year CIP budget plan. The
estimated project costs shown are inclusive of all anticipated direct and indirect costs, including
for administration and management of the project, permits, construction management and
City of Cupertino Page 9 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
City of Cupertino Page 10 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Completed Projects
Completed Projects FY2012
Projects completed by June 30, 2012
Description Description
2011-12 Annual Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk
Repairs & ADA Ramps
2011-12 Annual Pavement Management
2011-12 Annual Minor Storm Drain
Improvements
Blackberry Farm Infrastructure Upgrade
Civic Center Master Plan Framework Electric Vehicle Charging Station
Linda Vista Pond Improvements – Study McClellan Ranch/Simms Master Plan Update
McClellan Ranch 4H Sanitary Connection Permanente Creek
Safe Routed to School – Garden Gate Stocklmeir Orchard Irrigation
Various Minor Intersection Traffic Signal
Battery Backup System
Various Park Path and Parking Lot Repairs &
Resurfacing – Phase 1
Completed Projects FY2013
Projects completed by June 30, 2013
Description Description
Emergency Van Upgrades McClellan Ranch Repairs & Painting
McClellan Road Sidewalk Study Traffic Management Studies – 3 Intersections
Various Park Path and Parking Lot Repairs &
Resurfacing – Phase 2
Various Trail Resurfacing at School Sports
Fields – Phase 1
Various Trail Resurfacing at School Sports
Fields – Phase 2
Wilson Park Irrigation System Renovation
Completed Projects FY2014
Projects completed by June 30, 2014
Description Description
McClellan Ranch – Historic Structures
Assessment
McClellan Ranch – Barn Evaluation &
Renovation Plan
Mary Avenue Dog Park McClellan Ranch Preserve Signage Program
Senior Center – Various Improvements Phase 1 Solar Assessment – Public Building
Sports Center – Various Improvements Various Park Path Repairs – Phase 3
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Phase 2 Various Trail Resurfacing at School Sports
Fields – Phase 3
Various Traffic Signal/Intersection
Modifications
City of Cupertino Page 11 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Completed Projects FY2015
Projects completed by June 30, 2015
Description Description
Accessibility Transition Plan Update Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements
Calabazas Creek (Bollinger Rd.) Outfall
Repair
Install Speed Bumps – Vista and Lazaneo Dr
Mary Avenue Pedestrian & Streetscape
Improvements
McClellan Ranch Environmental Education
Center, Blacksmith Shop, Shelter, Solar &
Restroom Upgrades
McClellan Road Sidewalk Improvements –
Phase 1
Priority Green Bike Lane Improvements
Public Building Solar Installation – Service
Center
Quinlan Community Center Fiber Installation
Quinlan Center Interior Upgrades Sports Center Tennis Court Retaining Wall
Replacement
Completed Projects FY2016
Projects completed by June 30, 2016
Description Description
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Bubb Road (Elm Ct.) Storm Drain Imprvmts. Civic Center Master Plan
Civic Center-Parking Structure-Conceptual
Design
Fiber Network Expansion for Signal
Interconnect
Homestead Road Concrete Sidewalk Project McClellan Ranch - Pedestrian, Parking,
Landscape Improvements
McClellan Ranch West - Simm's House
Removal
Monta Vista Storm Drain System
Quinlan Community Center - Cupertino Rm
Lighting Replacement
Senior Center - Exercise Room Wood Floor
Replacement
Senior Center - Mary Avenue Landscaping Service Center - Parking Lot Modification
Sport Center-Sport Court (Tennis Court
Resurfacing)
Stevens Creek Blvd. at Perimeter Rd. Turn
Pocket Extension
City of Cupertino Page 12 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Completed Projects FY2017
Projects completed by June 30, 2017
Description Description
Blacksmith Shop Forge Restoration City Hall – Turf Reduction
DeAnza Monument Sign Pasadena Ave. Public Improvements
(Between Granada & Olive)
Pedestrian Master Plan Quinlan Community Center – Fire Alarm
Control Panel Upgrade
Service Center-New Admin. Bldg. Feasibility
Study
Sidewalk Renovation – Stevens Creek Blvd. –
Stelling to DeAnza
Sports Center – Resurface Tennis Courts (18
courts)
City of Cupertino Page 13 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
City of Cupertino Page 14 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Current and Proposed CIP Projects
City of Cupertino Page 15 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Priority 1 Projects
City of Cupertino Page 16 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
2016 Bike Plan Implementation
Budget Unit 420-99-036
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: Various Locations
Estimated Project Costs: $3,000,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct high priority improvements of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Bicycle Transportation Plan Update was completed in FY2015/16. The Plan identifies
improvement needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the
City. Upon its approval by City Council, implementing the recommended improvements is the
next step.
STATUS
Consultant hired to assist with developing concepts for Class III and Class IV bike lanes
identified in Bike Plan. Final feasibility study for Class IV bike lanes anticipated April, 2017,
with engineering design immediately following. Public outreach for and design of Class III
bike boulevards anticipated Spring through Summer 2017. RFP for Union Pacific Trail and I-280
trail is being developed.
City of Cupertino Page 17 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 900,000$ 600,000$ 300,000$
Construction 2,100,000$ 1,400,000 700,000
Total Project Expenditures 3,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 3,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 3,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Approximately $250,000 in Development In-lieu funds are applicable to this project.
City of Cupertino Page 18 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
ADA Improvements
Budget Unit 420-99-007
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: Various Locations
Estimated Project Costs: $545,000 ($75,000 annually)
DESCRIPTION
Implement ADA improvements annually.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
An update of the City’s ADA Transition Plan was completed in April 2015. The plan identifies
improvements needed and priorities to achieve compliance with ADA in public buildings,
parks, and the public right of way.
STATUS
A project at Jollyman and Varian Parks will implement walkway improvements summer/fall
2017. A project at the City Hall site will improve curb ramps.
City of Cupertino Page 19 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 180,000$ 50,000$ 30,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$
Construction 365,000$ 100,000 65,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total Project Expenditures 545,000$ 150,000$ 95,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 545,000$ 150,000$ 95,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 545,000$ 150,000$ 95,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 20 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements
Budget Unit 270-90-962
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: City Wide
Estimated Project Costs: $1,206,000
DESCRIPTION
Implement the Bicycle Transportation Plan and other bicycle network-related facility
improvements.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
In 2011 the City Council approved and adopted the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan,
which recommended improvements to 17 proposed bikeways throughout the City. In February
of 2015, Council approved an update to Plan that included many short-term, achievable
projects.
STATUS
Approximately 80% of improvements funded in 2015 Bicycle Plan Update have been completed.
Remaining items have either been rolled into the 2016 Bike Plan or will be incorporated into the
Parks Master Plan.
City of Cupertino Page 21 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 395,000$ 395,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 811,000$ 811,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 1,206,000$ 1,206,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 1,206,000$ 1,206,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 1,206,000$ 1,206,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
City of Cupertino Page 22 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Bikeway Enhancements and Wayfinding Plan
Budget Unit 420-99-037
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: City Wide
Estimated Project Costs: $60,000
DESCRIPTION
Develop a plan that identifies and prioritizes key City locations where bicycle wayfinding
signage, bicycle parking – both short-term and long-term – and Bike Share Program Depots
would be beneficial and most impactful. The plan will also provide a design standard for
signage. Available grant funding that may be applied towards these improvements will be
identified as part of this effort.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Upon approval of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, further development of
implementation strategies, specific locations, priorities, and design standards for bicycle facility
enhancements will be the next step toward implementation of the 2016 recommendations.
STATUS
Request for Proposals advertised in March, 2017. Plan development expected to begin May,
2017.
City of Cupertino Page 23 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 24 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
City Bridge Maintenance Repairs
Budget Unit 270-90-960
Priority: 1
CIP Category: B – Preventative Maintenance
Locations: Stevens Creek Blvd., Homestead Rd. and McClellan Rd. at
Stevens Creek
Stevens Creek Blvd., Miller Ave. and Tantau Ave. at Calabazas
Creek
Estimated Project Costs: $700,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct bridge repairs recommended in the Caltrans report along with additional
improvements to prolong the useful life of the bridges.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The City of Cupertino owns and maintains a total of seven vehicular bridges. Caltrans inspects
these bridges and prepares a biennial report detailing the recommended repairs. Six of the
seven bridges require rehabilitation. The required minor rehabilitation includes the 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 Caltrans’ Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (BPMP).
STATUS
The project has been programmed into the Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program
administered by Caltrans and the City expects to be reimbursed for up to $571,151 for this
project. The authorization to proceed with the Preliminary Engineering work and NEPA
Certification was received in May 2016. The project design phase is underway.
City of Cupertino Page 25 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 210,000$ 210,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 490,000$ 490,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 700,000$ 700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax 700,000$ 700,000 - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 700,000$ 700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 26 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Budget Unit 420-99-045
Priority: 1
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: City Parks
Estimated Project Costs: $500,000
DESCRIPTION
Prepare a long-range, city-wide park and recreation system master plan. The planning process
will include an evaluation of the recreation services, a needs assessment, and substantial
outreach to the community. The master plan will provide guidance regarding recreation
services needs as well as future renovations and capital needs for recreation facilities, including
parks and open space. The plan will provide guidance and recommendations on how to meet
the future demand for recreation services and programming, operations, and establish priorities
for facility improvements and acquisitions.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A comprehensive needs assessment and plan for recreation services will inform future capital
improvements and operations for those services.
STATUS
Per City Council authorization in January 2017, a consultant services has been executed with
Moore Iacofano Goltsman and services are underway. In March site tours were conducted and a
schedule was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Next steps include formation
of an advisory group, presentation of community input to date, and development of a vision
and goals for the master plan.
City of Cupertino Page 27 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 28 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Fiber Network Expansion to Service Center
Budget Unit 420-99-038
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: Mary Ave. between Stevens Creek Blvd. and the Service Center
Estimated Project Costs: $350,000
DESCRIPTION
Design for and install fiber optic cable along Mary Avenue between the intersection of Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue and the City of Cupertino Service Center.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Service Center currently has no direct communication and network connection to City Hall.
A direct digital link between the two facilities would improve communication for city
operations.
STATUS
Design phase is in progress
.
City of Cupertino Page 29 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 105,000$ 105,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 245,000$ 245,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 30 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Inclusive Play Area - Planning
Budget Unit 420-99-051
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Grant Opportunities
Location: TBD
Estimated Project Costs: $30,000
DESCRIPTION
This funding will be used to explore key project components such as suitable partnerships,
siting considerations, cost data, and grant opportunities. An Inclusive Play Area will be
addressed included in Citywide Parks, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Cupertino does not currently have an Inclusive Play area (the nearest ones are in Palo
Alto and San Jose). Santa Clara County approved one-time matching funding of $10M
countywide for such facilities on Feb. 28, 2017. First round grant applications are
anticipated this fall. This project will promote the city’s eligibility for grant funding for
such a facility.
STATUS
Initiate project in the summer 2017.
City of Cupertino Page 31 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 30,000$ 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 32 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Lawrence-Mitty Park
Budget Unit 280-99-009
Priority: 1
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Lawrence Expressway and Mitty
Estimated Project Costs: $8,270,994
DESCRIPTION
Develop a neighborhood park on several acres of land adjacent to Saratoga Creek, near the
intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Mitty, which is currently owned by the County and
within the City of San Jose. Acquire the land, annex the land, design and construct the park.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The City is under-served for neighborhood parks to meet the level of service goal of the City’s
General Plan. The east side of the City is particularly under-served.
STATUS
Initiated the project in the fall of FY 2015-16. Discussions with property owner, Santa Clara Co.,
are underway and continue. Preliminary site investigation and land appraisal completed.
Community tour of site and survey conducted in April 2017.
City of Cupertino Page 33 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 8,270,994$ 8,270,994$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 8,270,994$ 8,270,994$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees 8,270,994$ 8,270,994 - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 8,270,994$ 8,270,994$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Other Operating Costs -$ - TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 34 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
McClellan Ranch – Community Garden Improvements – Conceptual
Planning & Design
Budget Unit 420-99-004
Priority: 1
CIP Category: B – Preventative Maintenance
Location: McClellan Ranch Preserve
Estimated Project Costs: $100,000
DESCRIPTION
Prepare a feasibility analysis and preliminary/conceptual design to develop a plan and strategy
for improvement of the community garden. The process will include input from the gardener
community. Considerations will include plot layout, garden paths and accessibility to and
within the garden, perimeter fencing and irrigation distribution system.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The existing fence around the community garden is failing in many places and is unreliable as a
secure enclosure. The impact of rodents on the garden produce is pervasive and persistent.
The garden irrigation system is maintenance intensive and insufficient to meet the needs of the
garden. The existing garden plot sizing is variable; the garden should be reconfigured for
regular plot sizes.
STATUS
Project initiated in spring 2017.
City of Cupertino Page 35 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 100,000$ 30,000$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 100,000$ 30,000$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 100,000$ 30,000$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 100,000$ 30,000$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 36 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
McClellan Ranch – Construct Trash Enclosure
Budget Unit 420-99-003
Priority: 1
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: McClellan Ranch Preserve by 4h
Estimated Project Costs: $154,000
DESCRIPTION
Install a wood fence structure with gates on 3 sides of the existing trash and debris boxes. This
would include a concrete pad for the boxes.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Currently the trash containers are in the open, visible from McClellan Road, and attract illegal
dumping. Screening the trash containers will help discourage illegal dumping at McClellan
Ranch Preserve.
STATUS
Initiated project in the spring of 2017. Design phase underway.
City of Cupertino Page 37 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 104,000$ 104,000 - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 154,000$ 154,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 154,000$ 154,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 154,000$ 154,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance 950$ -$ -$ 200$ 250$ 250$ 250$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures 950$ -$ -$ 200$ 250$ 250$ 250$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 950$ -$ -$ 200$ 250$ 250$ 250$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 950$ -$ -$ 200$ 250$ 250$ 250$
City of Cupertino Page 38 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot Improvement
Budget Unit 420-99-030
Priority: 1
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: McClellan Ranch West
Estimated Project Costs: $950,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a new “green” meadow-style parking lot that is compatible with the creek
environment at McClellan Ranch West, which will be designed to have minimal impact to the
site.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The McClellan Ranch West site has been used informally for staff and overflow parking without
a suitable, stable surface, and which is not available for use during wet weather due to mud.
The opening of the Environmental Education Center in 2015 has increased the parking demand
at McClellan Ranch Preserve. The removal of the Simms house on the McClellan Ranch West
site advances the option to provide the additional parking that is needed by providing a
suitable parking surface.
STATUS
Design development is complete. The design process identified additional elements
recommended for occasional night use and all-weather/season use, and for efficient
maintenance and management of the proposed parking lot. Additional funding in FY 2017/18
will be required to advance the project to construction.
City of Cupertino Page 39 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 300,000$ 120,000$ 180,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 650,000$ 280,000 370,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 950,000$ 400,000$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 950,000$ 400,000$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 950,000$ 400,000$ 550,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ 500$ 500$ 500$ 500$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ 500$ 500$ 500$ 500$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ 500$ 500$ 500$ 500$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ 500$ 500$ 500$ 500$
City of Cupertino Page 40 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
McClellan Road Sidewalk Improvements – Phase 2
Budget Unit 270-90-976
Priority: 1
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: McClellan Rd. between Orange and San Leandro Avenues
Estimated Project Costs: $2,035,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct sidewalk improvements along McClellan Road between Orange Avenue
and San Leandro Avenue
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
In 2013, staff completed a feasibility study for the installation of sidewalks along McClellan
Road between Orange Avenue and San Leandro Avenue. McClellan Road has a high volume of
pedestrian traffic due to the close proximity of Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy Middle
School and Monta Vista High School, and there are large segments of McClellan Road which
currently lack sidewalks. Phase 1 of this project, which installs sidewalks along the less
challenging segments, is currently being implemented. Phase 2 will install sidewalks along the
remaining segments, which involve challenges such as acquiring right-of-way, relocation of
utilities, etc., and will be implemented over a two-year period.
STATUS
Design and engineering phase of project is underway. Class IV (separated) bike lane to be
included in certain locations. A neighborhood meeting was held on Feb. 15, 2017, and
discussions with abutting property owners have begun.
City of Cupertino Page 41 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 1,400,000$ 1,400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 635,000$ 635,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 2,035,000$ 2,035,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax 2,035,000$ 2,035,000 - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 2,035,000$ 2,035,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ - - - - - -
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 42 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Outfall Repair & Slope Stabilization - Regnart Rd.
Budget Unit 420-99-055
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: Regnart Road
Estimated Project Costs: $400,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct outfall repairs and slope stabilization along Regnart Rd.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Regnart Creek runs along the east side of Regnart Rd. Erosion damage due to the winter 2017
storms necessitates complete repairs to existing outfall and to stabilize adjacent slope from
further erosion.
STATUS
Initiate project in the summer 2017.
City of Cupertino Page 43 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 120,000$ 120,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 280,000$ - 280,000 - - -
Total Project Expenditures 400,000$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 400,000$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 400,000$ -$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 44 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Recreation Facilities Monument Signs
Budget Unit 420-99-031
Priority: 1
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Various
Estimated Project Costs: $385,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct new monument signs with lighting at the following locations:
McClellan Ranch Preserve McClellan Ranch West Blackberry Farm
Memorial Park Sports Center
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The McClellan Ranch Preserve and Stevens Creek Corridor Signage Program was approved by
Council in December 2014. The Signage Program prescribes a standardized and consistent look
and feel for all signage along Stevens Creek.
The Signage Program provides a signage convention that can be applied to other recreation
facilities in the city. The existing monument signs at several city facilities are outdated, worn,
and in need of repair. This project will install new monument signs at five city facilities
consistent with the Signage Program.
STATUS
Initiated the project in the spring of FY 2016-17. Design and development of bid documents is
underway.
City of Cupertino Page 45 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 115,000$ 115,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 270,000$ 270,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 385,000$ 385,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 385,000$ 385,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 385,000$ 385,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 46 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2016-2017
Retaining Wall Repair – Cordova Road
Budget Unit 420-99-040
Priority: 1
CIP Category: B – Preventative Maintenance
Location: West side of Cordova Road, north of San Juan Road
Estimated Project Costs: $350,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a project to replace the wood planks in the existing retaining wall.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
There is an existing wall along Cordova Rd. that retains soil adjacent to private property. Some
of the wood planks in the existing retaining wall have failed while most others have a
pronounced bow, indicating that the surcharge is pushing the existing wall to its design limits
and the risk of failure is high.
STATUS
Initiated the project in 3rd quarter of FY 2016-17. Design and engineering underway. Anticipate
summer 2017 construction.
City of Cupertino Page 47 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 105,000$ 105,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 245,000$ 245,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 350,000$ 350,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 48 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Retaining Wall Replacement – Regnart Road
Budget Unit 420-99-041
Priority: 1
CIP Category: B - Preventative Maintenance
Location: West side of Regnart Road, south of Regnart Canyon Drive
Estimated Project Costs: $450,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a new retaining wall to replace existing, including new surface and
subsurface drainage facilities.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Portions of an existing wood retaining wall that is adjacent to the roadway are rotting and
beginning to fail. Since Regnart Road is the only means of public vehicular access beyond this
point, failure of the wall could obstruct access to the residential properties.
STATUS
Initiated the project in 3rd quarter of FY 2016-17. Design and engineering underway.
Anticipate summer 2017 construction.
City of Cupertino Page 49 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 135,000$ 135,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 315,000$ 315,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 450,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 50 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Senior Center Repairs
Budget Unit 420-99-059
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Public Safety & C – Preventative Maintenance
Location: Senior Center
Estimated Project Costs: $200,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct repairs to the kitchen in-floor drains and to replace the ballroom
acoustical panels; evaluate the roof condition and potential solutions to persistent rodent
nesting.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The building was constructed in 2000. Code change s require that the in-floor drains be
modified. The acoustical panels in the ballroom are showing wear and tear and need to be
replaced to keep the facility looking and functioning well. The impacts of rodent nesting in the
building roof is causing damage and distress to building users.
STATUS
Initiate project in the summer 2017.
City of Cupertino Page 51 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 140,000$ - 140,000 - - -
Total Project Expenditures 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 200,000$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 52 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Service Center - Replacement Administration Building with EOC
Budget Unit 420-99-050
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Regulatory Mandate
Location: Service Center
Estimated Project Costs: $11,000,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construction of a new administration building with an EOC.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The current Service Center Administration building, built in the late 1970’s, is inadequate for
meeting current staffing levels. The City does not have an Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
to manage emergency responses, which would largely be implemented from the Service Center.
A new administration building will provide adequate, efficient office and meeting space for city
staff and an EOC, in a structurally compliant building. A feasibility study completed in spring
2017 provides design options and cost estimates for building a new administration/EOC
building at the Service Center. Late in the study process, the consultant was directed to modify
the conceptual plan to accommodate space for some modest future growth of Service Center
staffing, as well as allow up to ten staff from the overcrowded City Hall to be relocated to the
Service Center. This modification would move the estimated all-inclusive project cost from $11
million to approximately $15 million. Since the feasibility study is very conceptual and large
contingency factors are applied to the unknowns, the proposed budget is not proposed to be
adjusted to $15 million until the plan is more refined.
STATUS
Initiate the project in the summer of FY 2017-18.
City of Cupertino Page 53 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 9,000,000$ - - 9,000,000 - - -
Total Project Expenditures 11,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ 9,000,000$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 11,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ 9,000,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 11,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ 9,000,000$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 54 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Service Center Shed No. 3 Improvements
Budget Unit 420-99-034
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Regulatory Mandate
Location: Service Center
Estimated Project Costs: $500,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a replacement for the existing Shed 3 to accommodate the landscape
material and organic waste storage requirements, including durable walls and canopy.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Currently, loose landscape materials and waste are stored at the Service Center in outdoor
material storage bays at Shed No. 3. The area of the bays is covered with a metal canopy to
prevent moisture intrusion in the materials and as a stormwater protection. As part of the
City’s increasing waste diversion efforts, it now collects different types of organics from its sites
to recycle, including food scraps. To support this program, there needs to be a sufficient
number of storage bays at the Service Center to store the organic waste and keep the waste
streams separate and covered until they can be collected by the City’s recycling hauler. The
existing material bays need to be reconfigured to accommodate the increasing demand for
separate storage bays.
STATUS
Initiated the project in the summer of FY 2016-17; anticipate construction in fall 2017.
City of Cupertino Page 55 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 100,000$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 400,000$ - 400,000 - - -
Total Project Expenditures 500,000$ 100,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 500,000$ 100,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 500,000$ 100,000$ 400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 56 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Chain Master Plan – McClellan to Stevens
Creek Blvd.
Budget Unit 420-90-898
Priority: 1
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: Stevens Creek Corridor
Estimated Project Costs: $535,000
DESCRIPTION
Study the various uses of public lands along Stevens Creek for optimal public use and
operation. Properties to be included are McClellan Ranch Preserve, McClellan Ranch West,
Blackberry Farm, Blackberry Farm Golf Course, Nathan Hall Tank House, and the Stocklmeir
site.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Reconcile the various plans for the different City properties into a comprehensive plan to
inform future development and operations.
STATUS
A draft preferred alternative concept for the master plan was presented at a Council study
session April 5, 2016. This project is on hold pending progress on the Citywide Parks and
Recreation Master Plan to allow community-wide considerations to be addressed.
City of Cupertino Page 57 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 535,000$ 535,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 535,000$ 535,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 535,000$ 535,000$ - - - - -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 535,000$ 535,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 58 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Storm Drain Improvements – Foothill Blvd./Cupertino Rd.
Budget Unit 210-99-042
Priority: 1
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: Cupertino Rd. and Foothill Blvd.
Estimated Project Costs: $ 1,900,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a parallel system to the existing storm system to provide additional
capacity.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Alleviate local flooding and provide adequate downstream capacity. An existing section of
storm line that drains Cupertino Rd., which crosses by easement over private property, is prone
to flooding. Increasing the flow capacity of the storm drainage system by adding a
supplemental main on Cupertino Rd. and Foothill Blvd., will reduce the potential for flooding.
This project will be Priority No. 1 in the updated Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP).
STATUS
Initiated the project in summer of FY 2016-17. Design is complete. Subject to the completion of
PG&E utility relocations in April/May 2017, the project will be under construction summer
2017.
City of Cupertino Page 59 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 570,000$ 570,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 1,330,000$ 1,330,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees 1,900,000 1,900,000 - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 60 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Storm Drain Master Plan Update
Budget Unit 210-90-980
Priority: 1
CIP Category: B – Preventative Maintenance
Location: Citywide
Estimated Project Costs: $380,000
DESCRIPTION
Prepare a master plan for the City’s storm drainage system which will identify areas for
improvement to bring the current system into compliance with current laws and regulations,
and current land use and proposed future land use.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The storm drain master plan has not been updated since March 1993. With changes in State
laws governing storm water and land use changes it is necessary to update the storm drain
master plan to determine system deficiencies and track changes to the storm drain system. The
updated SDMP will provide guidance for programming future CIP storm drain improvement
projects.
STATUS
The initial phase of the project began in December 2015 to gather information about the existing
system. The next phase will analyze the existing system data and identify the areas and
segments of the system that require upgrades.
City of Cupertino Page 61 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 380,000$ 380,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 380,000$ 380,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees 380,000$ 380,000 - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 380,000$ 380,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 62 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Street Median Irrigation & Plant Replacement
Budget Unit 270-90-961
Priority: 1
CIP Category: B – Preventative Maintenance
Location: Various Locations
Estimated Project Costs: $1,410,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct replacement irrigation and plantings of street medians.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Cupertino has many mounded median islands which are difficult to irrigate efficiently. Since
the installation of many of the City’s planted median islands, the approach to grading, planting,
and maintaining them has changed as the desire to conserve resources has increased. Over that
same time, irrigation products and systems have also improved efficiency. In addition,
landscape plantings need to be replaced as they age out over time. Projects to renovate the
median islands will refresh the plantings and improve the efficiency in the use of water and
labor to maintain the systems.
STATUS
Consultant has completed the master plan for the renovation of median islands on De Anza
Boulevard. Design for initial phase to renovate the De Anza median islands between Bollinger
Rd. and Rodrigues Ave. to begin spring/summer 2017. Anticipate construction spring 2018.
City of Cupertino Page 63 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 441,000$ 216,000$ 225,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 969,000$ 444,000 525,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 1,410,000$ 660,000$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ - - - -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax 1,410,000$ 660,000 750,000 - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 1,410,000$ 660,000$ 750,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance (72,000)$ (4,000)$ (8,000)$ (12,000)$ (16,000)$ (16,000)$ (16,000)$
Other Operating Costs (18,000)$ (1,000) (2,000) (3,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000)
Total Operating Expenditures (90,000)$ (5,000)$ (10,000)$ (15,000)$ (20,000)$ (20,000)$ (20,000)$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund (90,000)$ (5,000)$ (10,000)$ (15,000)$ (20,000)$ (20,000)$ (20,000)$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding (90,000)$ (5,000)$ (10,000)$ (15,000)$ (20,000)$ (20,000)$ (20,000)$
City of Cupertino Page 64 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Tennis Court Resurfacing – Various Parks
Budget Unit 420-99-015
Priority: 1
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Memorial Park, Varian Park and Monta Vista Park
Estimated Project Costs: $1,103,000
DESCRIPTION
Over successive years, design and construct the resurfacing of the tennis courts at Memorial
Park, Varian Park and Monta Vista Park.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The tennis courts a three park locations in the City provide active recreation to residents and
they are well used. In order to maintain the quality of play the courts must be resurfaced
periodically.
STATUS
Initiated design for Memorial Park in winter of FY 2016-17. Contract awarded 3/21/17 for
spring construction. Propose combining Varian and Monta Vista courts into a single project for
FY 2017-18 construction.
City of Cupertino Page 65 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 340,000$ 190,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$
Construction 763,000$ 398,000 365,000 - -
Total Project Expenditures 1,103,000$ 588,000$ 515,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 1,103,000$ 588,000$ 515,000$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 1,103,000$ 588,000$ 515,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 66 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Priority 2 Projects
City of Cupertino Page 67 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
City of Cupertino Page 68 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Installation – Rose Blossom Dr. to Hwy 85
Overcrossing
Budget Unit 420-99-057
Priority: 2
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: McClellan Rd. – Rose Blossom to Hwy 85 Overcrossing
Estimated Project Costs: $430,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct approximately 650 LF of sidewalk on the north side of McClellan
between 85 and Rose Blossom.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
There is a sidewalk gap on the north side of McClellan Rd. between Rose Blossom and the Hwy
85 overcrossing, an active pedestrian area that is well used by students and other residents.
Installing a sidewalk in this location will provide continuous access to and from local schools
including De Anza College.
STATUS
Initiate project 2nd quarter of FY 2017-18.
City of Cupertino Page 69 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 130,000$ 130,000$ -$ -$
Construction 300,000$ 300,000 - -
Total Project Expenditures 430,000$ -$ 430,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 430,000$ 430,000$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 430,000$ -$ 430,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 70 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Senior Center Walkway Replacement
Budget Unit 420-99-054
Priority: 2
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: Senior Center
Estimated Project Costs: $64,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a replacement walkway from the parking lot to the front door. The pavers
will be replaced with a material that provides a more consistent surface texture.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The building was constructed in 2000 and the walkway to the main door from the parking lot
was installed using pavers with concrete bands. Some wheelchair and walker users find the
variable surface of the pavers to be difficult to move across. Providing a smoother path of
travel from the parking lot to the door will improve access.
STATUS
Initiate project in FY 2017-18.
City of Cupertino Page 71 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 20,000$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 44,000$ - 44,000 - - -
Total Project Expenditures 64,000$ -$ 64,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 64,000$ -$ 64,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 64,000$ -$ 64,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 72 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Sidewalk Improvements – Orange & Byrne
Budget Unit 270-90-958
Priority: 2
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Orange & Byrne
Estimated Project Costs: $3,888,000
DESCRIPTION
Acquire right-of-way as needed, design, and construct new sidewalks.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Monta Vista neighborhood was annexed to the City without having standard right-of-way
improvements, including sidewalks. Adding sidewalks to the neighborhood will improve
pedestrian safety.
STATUS
Initiated the project in spring of FY 2016-17. Land survey and other information gathering is
underway.
City of Cupertino Page 73 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 620,000$ 500,000$ 120,000$ -$ -$
Construction 3,268,000$ 3,268,000 - -
Total Project Expenditures 3,888,000$ 500,000$ 3,388,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax 3,888,000$ 500,000 3,388,000 - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 3,888,000$ 500,000$ 3,388,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Approximately $34,495 of Development In-Lieu funding is applicable this project.
City of Cupertino Page 74 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Priority 3 Projects
City of Cupertino Page 75 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
City of Cupertino Page 76 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Capital Project Support
Budget Unit 420-99-048
Priority: 3
CIP Category: Not applicable
Location: Various
Estimated Project Costs: $50,000
DESCRIPTION
Funding for exceptional or unusual services that may occasionally be required in support of
capital projects, so that such expenses may be accounted for and assigned to the project
requiring the specific services.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Budgeted capital projects that are in progress occasionally face unexpected management
responses that require additional effort by staff or with contract resources. Examples of this are
unusual legal or permit/regulatory issues. An annual appropriation will support timely
responses to such needs and also allow the expenditures to be assigned to the specific projects.
STATUS
Use on an as needed basis.
City of Cupertino Page 77 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 78 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
CIP Preliminary Planning & Design
Budget Unit 420-99-049
Priority: 3
CIP Category: Not applicable
Location: Various
Estimated Project Costs: $125,000
DESCRIPTION
Funding for preliminary planning, engineering and design services that are determined to be
needed subsequent to the adoption of the CIP Budget. This action will provide the means for
the acquisition of resources to respond to CIP initiatives in a timely way.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Funding within the CIP operating budget for General Contract Services has been the source of
funding for mid-year additions to the CIP project work program for planning. Such project
focused expenditures could not later be assigned to the specific capital project for tracking.
Shifting funding from the operating budget to the CIP for preliminary planning and design will
provide resources for mid-year CIP initiatives.
STATUS
Used on an as needed basis.
City of Cupertino Page 79 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 125,000$ 125,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 125,000$ -$ 125,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 125,000$ 125,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 125,000$ -$ 125,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 80 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2016-2017
International Cricket Ground - Feasibility Study
Budget Unit 420-99-049
Priority: 3
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: To be determined
Estimated Project Costs: $20,000
DESCRIPTION
Prepare a feasibility study for an international cricket ground.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
While the sport of cricket has been increasing in popularity in the US and in San Francisco bay
area, there is currently no dedicated field for play in Cupertino, including to meet the
requirements for adult international play. A feasibility study to assess the demand, possible
locations for an international scale field, and the estimated costs for such an improvement, will
provide base information for a future improvement project.
STATUS
Initiate project in FY 2017-18.
City of Cupertino Page 81 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 20,000$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 20,000$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 82 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study
Budget Unit 420-99-005
Priority: 3
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Memorial Park
Estimated Project Costs: $150,000
DESCRIPTION
Develop a master plan for the renovation Memorial Park and evaluate the parking needs for
Memorial Park, Senior Center, Sports Center and the Quinlan Community Center. The project
may result in a future renovation project.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A process to obtain community input and consensus will assist in formulating plans to renovate
portions of the park including parking requirements and upgrades for surrounding facilities.
STATUS
Project schedule is subject to the outcome of the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master
Plan.
City of Cupertino Page 83 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 150,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 150,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 150,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 150,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 84 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Sports Center – Upgrades
Budget Unit 420-99-017
Priority: 3
CIP Category: B – Resource and Cost Efficiencies
Location: Sports Center
Estimated Project Costs: $760,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and implement the following, as prioritized, as available funding permits: 1) replace
fixtures lighting the east courts with new LED fixtures; 2) install an electronic messaging sign at
the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. & Stelling Rd.; 3) other miscellaneous improvements.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Various improvements to the facility will improve user experience and attract new users.
Conversion of the east court lights to LED is a top priority along with installing an electronic
monument sign. The last major upgrades to the building were in 2004 and the facility is in need
of some minor upgrades, due to wear-&-tear and weathering.
STATUS
Initiate project in FY 2017-18.
City of Cupertino Page 85 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 228,000$ 228,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 532,000$ 532,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 760,000$ 760,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 760,000$ 760,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 760,000$ 760,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance 6,500$ -$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures 6,500$ -$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 6,500$ -$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 6,500$ -$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,500$ 1,500$ 1,500$
City of Cupertino Page 86 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Stevens Creek Bank Repair – South of SCB – Conceptual Design
Budget Unit 420-99-014
Priority: 3
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Stevens Creek South of Stevens Creek Boulevard
Estimated Project Costs: $100,000
DESCRIPTION
Prepare a conceptual design for repairs to creek banks that will protect property from
further erosion and stabilize the bank, and is compatible with existing goals and
requirements for the creek corridor.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
In 2014, the City purchased a residential parcel (Blesch) on Stevens Creek Boulevard
that lies between the Stocklmeir site and the Blackberry Farm Golf Course. The creek
channel upstream of this parcel has been widened and restored. However this parcel,
which is in the active floodway and subject to bank erosion, remains to be stabilized
and restored. This parcel is targeted for improvements relating to the park and
recreation purposes of the Stevens Creek Corridor. Its bank should be stabilized before
such improvements move forward in order to protect the City’s investment. A
conceptual plan for improvement of the bank and channel will make the
implementation of the project more eligible and attractive for potential grant funding.
STATUS
Initiate project in FY 2017-18.
City of Cupertino Page 87 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 88 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Stocklmeir House – New Sewer Lateral
Budget Unit 420-99-035
Priority: 3
CIP Category: B – Preventative Maintenance
Location: Stocklmeir Property
Estimated Project Costs: $50,000
DESCRIPTION
Install a new sewer lateral to connect the Stocklmeir House to the City’s sanitary sewer main.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Alternative uses for the Stocklmeir house are being considered, including for office space. In order
to occupy the building various improvements will be necessary, including replacement of the
sanitary sewer line serving the house. This is the first step towards renovating this house and
making it suitable for future non-residential use and occupancy. The project will not be initiated
until the new use of the building is identified and approved by Council.
STATUS
Project initiation is subject to Council approval of an agreement for the improvement and use of the
building.
City of Cupertino Page 89 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 50,000$ 50,000 - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 50,000$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 90 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Storm Drain Improvements - Byrne Ave. & Stevens Creek Blvd.
Budget Unit 210-99-060
Priority: 3
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: Stevens Creek Blvd. from Stevens Creek to Byrne Ave.;
Byrne Ave. from Stevens Creek Blvd. to Granada Ave. and from
Almaden Ave. to San Fernando Ave.
Estimated Project Costs: $1,500,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct new storm mains at the designated locations to increase the capacity of
the downstream portion of the system and allow the newer upstream portion of the system to
connect to it.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The storm drain system along Byrne Ave. is currently split into two separate systems, an upper and
a lower. The recently completed Monta Vista Storm Drain Project is the upper section, collecting
storm water from the Monta Vista neighborhood and conveying it off the streets. This split was
created to stay within the capacity limits of the existing downstream section. In order to maximize
the capacity of the recently installed section, the existing downstream portion must be upgraded or
supplemented. Increasing the capacity of the existing downstream system on Byrne Ave. will allow
the upper and lower systems to be connected thereby reducing the storm water flow that is currently
diverted to the Blackberry Farm Golf Course.
STATUS
Initiate the project in FY 2017-18.
City of Cupertino Page 91 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 450,000$ -$ 450,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 1,050,000$ - 1,050,000 - - -
Total Project Expenditures 1,500,000$ -$ 1,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees 1,500,000$ - 1,500,000 - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 1,500,000$ -$ 1,500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 92 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Street Light Installation – Annual Infill
Budget Unit 420-99-056
Priority: 3
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Various
Estimated Project Costs: $150,000; $30,000 annually
DESCRIPTION
Design and install street lights on an as needed basis.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
There are areas of the city where street light spacing is insufficient to meet current standards for
illumination. Several locations are identified annually for infill with one or two lights. An
annual appropriation will allow these deficiencies to be readily addressed.
STATUS
Performed as needed.
City of Cupertino Page 93 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 5,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$
Construction 145,000$ - 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000 29,000
Total Project Expenditures 150,000$ -$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 150,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 150,000$ -$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$ 30,000$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs 3,800$ - - 360 740 1,140 1,560
Total Operating Expenditures 3,800$ -$ -$ 360$ 740$ 1,140$ 1,560$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 3,800$ -$ -$ 360$ 740$ 1,140$ 1,560$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 3,800$ -$ -$ 360$ 740$ 1,140$ 1,560$
City of Cupertino Page 94 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Street Light Installation – Randy Ln. & Larry Wy.
Budget Unit 420-99-058
Priority: 3
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: Randy Ln. & Larry Wy.
Estimated Project Costs: $367,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and install street light installations to fill gaps in street light coverage.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Larry Way and Randy Lane both have gaps in street light coverage that exceed the City’s street
light spacing policy. Both streets have been designated semi-rural, which has resulted in a
waiver of sidewalk installation, causing pedestrians to walk in the street. Additionally, Lawson
Middle School is located immediately south of these streets with the associated student
pedestrianism. Residents have requested additional lighting along these streets, and Public
Works Staff finds that the additional lighting is warranted. This project will fill gaps in street
light coverage along these streets in order to enhance safety.
STATUS
Initiate project in FY 2017-18.
City of Cupertino Page 95 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 110,000$ -$ 110,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 257,000$ - 257,000 - - -
Total Project Expenditures 367,000$ -$ 367,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 367,000$ -$ 367,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - -
Total Project Funding 367,000$ -$ 367,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs 3,512$ - - 840 865 890 917
Total Operating Expenditures 3,512$ -$ -$ 840$ 865$ 890$ 917$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 3,512$ -$ -$ 840$ 865$ 890$ 917$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 3,512$ -$ -$ 840$ 865$ 890$ 917$
City of Cupertino Page 96 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Traffic Signal: Foothill/I-280 SB Off-ramp
Budget Unit 420-99-028
Priority: 3
CIP Category: A – Grant
Location: Foothill Blvd. / I-280
Estimated Project Costs: $100,000
DESCRIPTION
Match funding for the design and installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of
Foothill Expressway and the Interstate 280 southbound off-ramp.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department has identified a new traffic signal at
the intersection of Foothill Expressway and the Interstate 280 southbound off-ramp as a project
in their draft Expressway Plan 2040. A local match of 20% is required in order to place the
project within their Tier 1 category, from which the first round of projects will be funded.
STATUS
Transmit funding when required by the County of Santa Clara.
City of Cupertino Page 97 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 100,000$ - 100,000 - - -
Total Project Expenditures 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - -
Total Project Funding 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 98 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Priority 4 Projects
City of Cupertino Page 99 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
City of Cupertino Page 100 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Jollyman Park Pathway Installation
Budget Unit 420-99-052
Priority: 4
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Jollyman Park
Estimated Project Costs: $700,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a pathway around the southeastern field at Jollyman Park.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Currently many visitors to this park walk a circuit around the edges of the southeastern
ballfield. Installing a paved path will provide a more stable surface for this activity, greatly
increasing the paved walking circuit within the park.
STATUS
Subject to the outcome of the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, initiate design
in FY 2018-19 for construction in FY 2019-20.
City of Cupertino Page 101 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 500,000$ - - - 500,000 -
Total Project Expenditures 700,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 500,000$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 700,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 500,000$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 700,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$ 500,000$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TBD TBD
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 102 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Linda Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan
Budget Unit 420-99-053
Priority: 4
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Linda Vista Park
Estimated Project Costs: $70,000
DESCRIPTION
Develop a master plan for renovation of Linda Vista Park. The planning process will include
community input. This project may result in a future renovation projects that could range from
$ 500,000 to $ 2,000,000, subject to the outcome of the master plan process.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Linda Vista Park was originally constructed in 1969 and modified in 1986. Areas of the park are
underutilized or could be updated or reconsidered for current recreation needs.
STATUS
Subject to the outcome of the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, initiate in FY
2018-19.
City of Cupertino Page 103 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TBD
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TBD TBD
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 104 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Memorial Park Phase 1 – Design
Budget Unit 420-99-010
Priority: 4
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Memorial Park
Estimated Project Costs: $250,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and prepare construction documents and cost estimates for park improvements.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study will identify capital improvements for
Memorial Park. A conceptual plan for improvement of the park will make the implementation
of the project more eligible and attractive for potential grant funding.
STATUS
Subject to the outcome of the Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study, initiate design in FY
2019-20.
City of Cupertino Page 105 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 106 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Memorial Park Phase 1 - Construction
Budget Unit XXX-XXXX
Priority: 4
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Memorial Park
Estimated Project Costs: $1,000,000
DESCRIPTION
Construct improvements at Memorial Park.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Subject to the approval of a master plan and final design, construction of improvements will
implement the master plan.
STATUS
Subject to the outcome of the Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study, initiate design in FY
2019-20 for construction in FY 2020-21.
City of Cupertino Page 107 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 1,000,000$ - - - 1,000,000 -
Total Project Expenditures 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 1,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TBD
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TBD TBD
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 108 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Monta Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan
Budget Unit 420-99-XXX
Priority: 4
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Monta Vista Park
Estimated Project Costs: $50,000
DESCRIPTION
Develop a master plan for the renovation of Monta Vista Park. The planning process will
include community input. This project may result in a future renovation projects that could
range from $ 500,000 to $ 2,000,000, subject to the outcome of the master plan process
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Monta Vista Park has some facilities from the original construction in the 1960s that can no
longer be used as intended. Areas of the park are underutilized for this reason. A process to
obtain community input and consensus will inform future plans to renovate portions of the
park.
STATUS
Subject to the outcome of the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, initiate
project in FY 2019-20.
City of Cupertino Page 109 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 110 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Portal Park – Renovation Master Plan
Budget Unit 420-99-006
Priority: 4
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Portal Park
Estimated Project Costs: $50,000
DESCRIPTION
Develop a master plan for the renovation of Portal Park. Include a community outreach process
to inform the plan. This project may result in a future renovation project that could range from
$ 500,000 to $ 2,000,000, subject to the outcome of the master plan process.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Portal Park has some facilities from the original construction in the 1960s that can no longer be
used as intended. Areas of the park are underutilized for this reason. A process to obtain
community input and consensus will inform future plans to renovate portions of the park.
STATUS
Subject to the outcome of the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, initiate
project FY 2018-19.
City of Cupertino Page 111 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 112 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Storm Drain Improvements - Homestead Road
Budget Unit 270-99-029
Priority: 4
CIP Category: A – Public Safety
Location: Homestead Road between Bluejay Dr. and Blaney Ave.
Estimated Project Costs: $2,398,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a parallel system to the existing storm system to provide additional
capacity as identified in the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP).
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Alleviate local flooding and provide adequate downstream capacity for the buildout of the
SDMP. This project is Priority No. 2 in the SDMP.
STATUS
Initiate the project in FY 2018-19.
City of Cupertino Page 113 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 719,000$ -$ -$ 719,000$ -$ -$
Construction 1,679,000$ - - 1,679,000 - -
Total Project Expenditures 2,398,000$ -$ -$ 2,398,000$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax 2,398,000$ - - 2,398,000 - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 2,398,000$ -$ -$ 2,398,000$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 114 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Wilson Park - Renovation Master Plan
Budget Unit 580-90-909
Priority: 4
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Wilson Park
Estimated Project Costs: $50,000
DESCRIPTION
Develop a master plan for the renovation of the east side of Wilson Park. The planning process
will include community input. This project may result in a future renovation projects that could
range from $ 500,000 to $ 2,000,000, subject to the outcome of the master plan process.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Wilson Park has sport fields on the west side of the park and the east side of the park is
potentially underutilized. A process to obtain community input and consensus will assist in
formulating a plan to renovate portions of the park.
STATUS
Subject to the outcome of the Citywide Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, initiate
project in FY 2019-20.
City of Cupertino Page 115 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Construction -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds 50,000$ - - - 50,000 - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs -$ - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees -$ - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees -$ - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds -$ - - - - - -
Gas Tax -$ - - - - - -
Other – Grants -$ - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 116 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Development In-Lieu Contributions
City of Cupertino Page 117 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
City of Cupertino Page 118 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Development In-Lieu Contributions
De Anza Blvd./McClellan/Pacifica Signal Modification
Budget Unit XXX-XX-XXX
Priority: Development in-Lieu Contributions
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: DeAnza Blvd./McClellan/Pacifica Intersection
Estimated Project Costs: Budgetary Estimate $ 600,000
Fund Balance: $155,989
DESCRIPTION
Reconfigure the intersection which may include relocating two signal mast arms and poles,
related electrical, concrete and striping work, and the closing of the Pacifica street driveway to
the gas station.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Improve traffic flow and efficiency at this complex intersection.
STATUS
Project to be initiated upon the accumulation of sufficient Developer contributions or the
addition of supplementary City funding.
City of Cupertino Page 119 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 200,000$ - - - - - -$
Construction 400,000$ - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ - - - - - -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants 155,989 - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 155,989$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified 444,011$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 120 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Development In-Lieu Contributions
Monument Gate Way Signs (4)
Budget Unit XXX-XX-XXX
Priority: Development in-Lieu Contributions
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: Various Locations
Estimated Project Costs: Budgetary Estimate $ 67,000
Fund Balance: $25,859
DESCRIPTION
Upgrade or replace three existing center island gateway signs, that announce one’s entry into
Cupertino, at 1) Stevens Creek Blvd near Tantau, 2) De Anza Blvd near I-280 overcrossing, 3) De
Anza Blvd near Bollinger Road, and install a new center island gateway sign at Stevens Creek
Blvd near the Oaks shopping center.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Enhance the identity of the city.
STATUS
A sign was installed on De Anza Blvd. at Bollinger Rd. in FY 2017. Sign installations at other
locations will be initiated upon the accumulation of sufficient Developer contributions or the
addition of supplementary City funding.
City of Cupertino Page 121 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 22,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 45,000 - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 67,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants, Dev. In-Lie 25,859 - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 25,859$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified 41,141$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$
City of Cupertino Page 122 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Development In-Lieu Contributions
North Stelling Rd./ I-280 Bridge Pedestrian Lighting & Upgrades
Budget Unit XXX-XX-XXX
Priority: Development in-Lieu Contributions
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: North Stelling Rd. at I-280 overcrossing
Estimated Project Costs: $50,000
Fund Balance: $48,747
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct pedestrian-scaled lighting, paving materials, railings and/or repainting of
the pe destrian facilities of the east or west side of the bridge.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Two developments contributed $25,000 to the City for enhancements to the pedestrian walkway
along the east or west side of the N. Stelling Road Bridge that crosses over Interstate 280, which
is located south of the project sites. The City had a report prepared to analyze the existing
lighting and provide recommendations to complete the project.
STATUS
Feasibility study completed and evaluating alternative in FY 2016-17.
City of Cupertino Page 123 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction 17,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction 33,000 - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants, Dev. In-Lie 48,747 - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 48,747$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified 1,253$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ 200$ 200$ 300$ 300$ 300$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ 200$ 200$ 300$ 300$ 300$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ 200$ 200$ 300$ 300$ 300$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ 200$ 200$ 300$ 300$ 300$
City of Cupertino Page 124 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Development In-Lieu Contributions
Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bandley Signal and Median Improvements
Budget Unit XXX-XX-XXX
Priority: Development in-Lieu Contributions
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: Stevens Creek Blvd. at Bandley
Estimated Project Costs: TBD
Fund Balance: $25,202
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct improvements to upgrade the traffic signal at Bandley Dr. and Stevens
Creek Blvd. (should the need arise due to impacts from the development) and the traffic
median on Steven Creek Blvd., east of Bandley Dr. and west of De Anza Blvd.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The redevelopment of the Cupertino Crossroads property contributed $50,000 to mitigate traffic
impacts in the vicinity of the development. Funds were split evenly for traffic signal upgrades
and for traffic median upgrades. Traffic median improvements have been completed.
STATUS
Project to be initiated upon the accumulation of sufficient Developer contributions or the
addition of supplementary City funding.
City of Cupertino Page 125 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
FISCAL IMPACT
The following table outlines the project budget, prior year and projected costs and funding
sources for the next five years including any anticipated impacts to the operating budget:
Project Expenditures Project Budget Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Pre-Construction TBD -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction TBD - - - - - -
Total Project Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants, Dev. In-Lieu 25,202 - - - - - -
Total Project Funding 25,202$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Not Yet Identified (25,202)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Operating Expenditures
Operating
Budget
Prior
Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Maintenance -$ - - - - - -$
Other Operating Costs - - - - - - -
Total Operating Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Funding Sources
City – General Fund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Park Dedication Fees - - - - - - -
Storm Drain Fees - - - - - - -
Enterprise Funds - - - - - - -
Gas Tax - - - - - - -
Other – Grants - - - - - - -
Total Project Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
City of Cupertino Page 126 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Unfunded CIP Projects
City of Cupertino Page 127 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
City of Cupertino Page 128 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Blackberry Farm - Golf Course Renovation
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: B – Preventive Maintenance
Location: Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Estimated Project Costs: TBD
DESCRIPTION
Initiate preliminary design effort to completely reconfigure and rebuild the existing golf course
per the recommendations made by the National Golf Foundation, Inc. in their report dated
December 2015. At a minimum, replace the existing irrigation system with a modern, water-
efficient system and repair the two existing ponds. Pursue reactivating the existing well at
Blackberry Farm and provide connections to allow use of well water to fill the ponds.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The current irrigation system, installed in the 1960s, is functionally outdated and failing due to
age, which results in an excessive use of water and labor to maintain the system. The increasing
retail cost of water exacerbates the operational inefficiency. Existing ponds no longer hold
water.
City of Cupertino Page 129 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Blackberry Farm – Play Area Improvements
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Blackberry Farm Picnic Area
Estimated Project Costs: $540,000 - Budgetary Estimate (Escalated to FY15/16)
DESCRIPTION
Remove existing tan bark and replace with new resilient surfacing and install 3 par course type
exercise stations.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Captain Stevens play area could be enhanced by adding a more reliable and stable resilient
play surface beneath the play equipment and by adding exercise stations adjacent to the play
area that would provide for a multi-generational activity.
City of Cupertino Page 130 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Blackberry Farm – Splash Pad
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: Blackberry Farm
Estimated Project Costs: $690,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct a splash pad of approximately 2000 square feet.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Blackberry Farm currently provides aquatic amenities for children and adults, but doesn’t have
an element to serve very young children and toddlers. Adding an element that will serve the
youngest family members will enhance the attraction of the facility for families with children of
various ages.
City of Cupertino Page 131 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Civic Center Master Plan Implementation
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Civic Center
Estimated Project Costs: TBD
DESCRIPTION
Implement approved Civic Center Master Plan.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Council approved the Civic Center Master Plan in July 2015. No further action to implement
the approved plan has be taken. The current City Hall is inefficiently laid out to accommodate
the growing functional requirements and staff, and the building is structurally deficient and has
numerous systems deficiencies that make it prone to system shutdowns or malfunctions. The
Library has limited space to host its growing event programming. The Community Hall is used
by the Library to host many of the events that cannot be accommodated in the library building,
and greatly dominates the use of the Community Hall. Expansion of the Library will require
additional parking at the civic center site.
City of Cupertino Page 132 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Implement Storm Drain Master Plan Priorities
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: B – Preventative Maintenance
Location: Various locations
Estimated Project Costs: $2,000,000
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct high priority storm drain improvements at locations identified in the
updated Storm Drain Master Plan. The goal of the improvements is to minimize the potential
for localized flooding of streets and private property.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Completion of the Storm Drain Master Plan Update is anticipated in 2016, which will identify
and prioritize storm drain improvement projects. A project to fund implementation of the
initial priorities will be the next step to improve the City’s storm drain system.
City of Cupertino Page 133 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Jollyman Park Irrigation Upgrade
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: B – Resource and Cost Efficiencies
Location: Jollyman Park
Estimated Project Costs: $2,313,000
DESCRIPTION
Evaluate and analyze the existing irrigations system at Jollyman Park, followed by design and
construction of improvements.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The irrigation system at Jollyman Park is antiquated and fragile resulting in frequent breaks in
water lines and malfunctioning equipment. Broken water lines result in increased use of water
and soggy fields that cannot be used. The poor performance of the system also requires
increased staff labor to repair and restore the system. Upgrading the system will result in
savings of water and staff labor.
City of Cupertino Page 134 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
McClellan Ranch – Barn Renovation
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: McClellan Ranch Preserve
Estimated Project Costs: $1,580,000 - Budgetary Estimate (Escalated to FY15/16)
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct improvements to renovate the barn into an educational and public space.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
In 2012, an update to the 1993 master plan for the McClellan Ranch was completed, which lays
out priorities for implementing programs and the related improvements at the park. In the FY
2013 budget, Council approved funding for the barn to be evaluated historically and
structurally and for a conceptual renovation plan to be developed to meet the goals for the barn
as listed in the master plan. The outcome of this project produced a conceptual renovation plan
for the barn to be used for education and as an agricultural exhibit space open to the public.
City of Cupertino Page 135 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
McClellan Ranch – Community Garden Improvements Construction
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: B – Preventative Maintenance
Location: McClellan Ranch Preserve
Estimated Project Costs: TBD
DESCRIPTION
Prepare construction documents for improvement of the existing community garden, including
plot layout, garden paths and accessibility to and within the garden, perimeter fencing and
irrigation distribution system. Bid and construct the improvements.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Implement the approved McClellan Ranch Community Garden Improvements – Conceptual
Design. See the McClellan Ranch – Community Garden Improvements – Conceptual Planning
and Design project sheet.
City of Cupertino Page 136 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
McClellan Ranch Preserve Stevens Creek Access
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: McClellan Ranch Preserve
Estimated Project Costs: TBD
DESCRIPTION
Design and construct an accessible access to the creek.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Design and construct an accessible access to the creek along Stevens Creek in McClellan Ranch
Preserve to be able to offer as a learning experience.
City of Cupertino Page 137 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Memorial Park – Tennis Court Restroom Replacement
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C- Enhancement
Location: Memorial Park by Tennis Courts
Estimated Project Costs: $488,000
DESCRIPTION
Evaluate options for providing a restroom in the vicinity of the tennis courts, by modification of
the existing or replacement. Design and construct the restroom improvements.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The public restroom near the Memorial Park Tennis Courts needs upgrading for improved
performance and to improve accessibility
City of Cupertino Page 138 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Monta Vista Park –Play Areas
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Monta Vista Park
Estimated Project Costs: $1,334,000
DESCRIPTION
In the general location of the existing play area, design and construct two play areas – one for
school-age children and a fenced-enclosed pre-school play area that can be used by
neighborhood families and by the pre-school program at Monta Vista Recreation Center.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Currently there is a single general access play area to serve all childhood ages at Monta Vista
Park. The Pre-School program at Monta Vista Recreation Center uses the play area for the ir
students. The existing play area has not been upgraded since the City acquired the property.
The pre-school program and neighborhood families would benefit by having separate age-
appropriate play areas for pre-schoolers and older children.
City of Cupertino Page 139 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Portal Park Phase 1 – Design & Construction
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C – Enhancement
Location: Portal Park
Estimated Project Costs: $825,000
DESCRIPTION
Prepare conceptual design documents for implementing the improvements proposed in the
master plan.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Subject to the outcome of the Portal Park-Renovation Master Plan, a conceptual design for the
implementation of the master plan may attract grant funding from external sources. A
conceptual plan for improvement of the park will make the implementation of the project more
eligible and attractive for potential grant funding.
City of Cupertino Page 140 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Stevens Creek Trail Bridge over UPRR
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Stevens Creek Boulevard West of Foothill Blvd.
Estimated Project Costs: $2,860,000 – Budgetary Estimate (Escalated to FY15/16)
DESCRIPTION
Acquire necessary easement, permits, and agreements, and, design and construct a
vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle bridge span over the UPRR right of way, adjacent to Stevens Creek
Blvd. and near the Lehigh Cement Plant.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Provide a connection with the Stevens Creek Trail system and vehicle access to the Snyder-
Hammond House. This project is included in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan.
City of Cupertino Page 141 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Stocklmeir Legacy Farm – Phase 1 Improvement
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Stocklmeir Property
Estimated Project Costs: $400,000 - Placeholder only – scope details unknown
DESCRIPTION
Develop a service program and master plan for a legacy farm park, and implement an initial
improvement project.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Transition the former Stocklmeir property to a public park as a “legacy farm”.
City of Cupertino Page 142 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Unfunded
Wilson Park Phase 1 – Design & Construction
Priority: Unfunded
CIP Category: C - Enhancement
Location: Wilson Park
Estimated Project Costs: $825,000
DESCRIPTION
Prepare conceptual design documents for implementing the improvements proposed in the
master plan.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Subject to the outcome of the Wilson Park Renovation Master Plan, a conceptual design for the
implementation of the master plan may attract grant funding from external sources. A
conceptual plan for improvement of the park will make the implementation of the project more
eligible and attractive for potential grant funding.
City of Cupertino Page 143 of 143
FY 2017-2018 CIP Budget - PROPOSED
Appendix: Five-Year CIP Summary
Proposed Five‐Year Capital Improvement ProgramFY2018 ‐ FY2022DescriptionTotal BudgetPrior Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022CURRENT PROJECTS REQUIRING ADD'L FUNDS & NEW PROJECTSADMINISTRATION FACILITIESADA Improvements545,000 150,000 95,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000Service Center Shed No. 3 Improvements 500,000 100,000 400,000New ProjectsCapital Project Support 50,00050,000CIP Preliminary Planning & Design 125,000125,000Service Center - Replacement Administration Building with EOC11,000,0002,000,000 9,000,000Totals 12,220,000 250,000 2,670,000 9,075,000 75,000 75,000 75,000REC & COMM SERVICE FACILITIESMcClellan Ranch - Community Garden Improvements - Conceptual Planning & Design100,000 30,000 70,000MCClellan West Parking Lot Improvement950,000400,000 550,000Memorial Park Phase 1 - Construction1,000,0001,000,000Memorial Park Phase 1 - Design250,000 .250,000Monta Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan50,00050,000Portal Park - Renovation Master Plan50,00050,000Stevens Creek Bank Repair - South of SCB - Conceptual Design100,000100,000Tennis Court Resurfacing - Various Parks1,103,000 588,000 515,000Wilson Park - Renovation Master Plan50,00050,000New ProjectsInclusive Play Area - Planning30,00030,000International Cricket Ground - Feasibility Study20,00020,000Jollyman Park Pathway Installation700,000200,000 500,000Linda Vista Park - Renovation Master Plan70,00070,000Senior Center Repairs200,000200,000Senior Center Walkway Replacement64,00064,000Totals 4,737,000 1,018,000 1,549,000 320,000 850,000 1,000,00001 of 3
Proposed Five‐Year Capital Improvement ProgramFY2018 ‐ FY2022DescriptionTotal BudgetPrior Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022STORM DRAINStorm Drain Improvements - Byrne Ave. & Stevens Creek Blvd. 1,500,000 1,500,000Storm Drain Improvements - Homestead Road 2,398,000 2,398,000New ProjectsOutfall Repair & Slope Stabilization - Regnart Rd. 400,000 400,000Totals4,298,000 0 1,900,000 2,398,000000TRANSPORTATIONSidewalk Improvements - Orange & Byrne 3,888,000 500,000 3,388,000Traffic Signal: Foothill/I-280 SB Off-ramp100,000100,0002016 Bicycle Plan Implementation3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000Street Median Irrigation & Plant Replacement1,410,000 660,000 750,000New ProjectsMcClellan Rd. Sidewalk Installation - Rose Blossom Dr. to Hwy 85 Overcrossing 430,000430,000Street Light Installation - Annual Infill150,00030,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000Street Light Installation - Randy Ln. & Larry Wy.367,000367,000Totals 9,345,000 3,160,000 6,065,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000TOTAL All New Funding 30,600,000 4,428,000 12,184,000 11,823,000 955,000 1,105,000 105,0002 of 3
Proposed Five‐Year Capital Improvement ProgramFY2018 ‐ FY2022DescriptionTotal BudgetPrior Years FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022CURRENT PROJECTS - NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUIREDADMINISTRATION FACILITIESFiber Network Extension to Service Center 350,000 350,000REC & COMM SERVICE FACILITIESCitywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan500,000 500,000Lawrence-Mitty Park8,270,994 8,270,994McClellan Ranch - Construct Trash Enclosure154,000 154,000Memorial Park Master Plan & Parking Study150,000 150,000Recreation Facilities Monument Signs385,000385,000Sports Center - Upgrades 760,000 760,000Stevens Creek Corridor Park Chain Master Plan - McClellan to Stevens Creek Blvd 535,000 535,000Stocklmeir House - New Sewer Lateral 50,000 50,000STORM DRAINStorm Drain Master Plan Update 380,000 380,000Storm Drain Improvements - Foothill Blvd. /Cupertino Rd. 1,900,000 1,900,000TRANSPORTATIONBikeway Enhancements & Wayfinding Plan 60,000 60,000Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements 1,206,000 1,206,000City Bridge Maintenance Repairs 700,000700,000McClellan Rd. Sidewalk Improvements - Phase 2 2,035,000 2,035,000Retaining Wall Repair - Cordova Rd. 350,000 350,000Retaining Wall Replacement - Regnart Rd.450,000 450,000TOTAL CURRENT PROJECT FUNDING18,235,994 18,235,99400000CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TOTALS 48,835,994 22,663,994 12,184,000 11,823,000 955,000 1,105,000 105,0003 of 3
Page 1 of 6
General Plan Consistency Notes for File No. CP-2017-##
City of Cupertino First Year Programmed Projects
5-Year Capital Improvement Program
Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22
#Project Title Project Description General Plan Consistency Review
Notes
1 2016 Bike Plan
Implementation
Design and construct high
priority improvements of the 2016
Bicycle Transportation plans.
Promote improvements to City streets
that safely accommodate all
transportation modes and persons of
all abilities; see General Plan Goal M-2
Support a safe pedestrian and bicycle
street network for people of all ages
and abilities; see General Plan Goal M-
3
Ensure safe and efficient pedestrian
and bicycle access to schools while
working to reduce school-related
congestion; see General Plan Goal M-5
Develop and implement an updated
citywide transportation plan necessary
to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian
and bicycle transportation
improvements to meet the City’s
needs; see General Plan Policy M-10.1
Integrate the financing, design and
construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities with street projects. Build
pedestrian and bicycle improvements
at the same time as improvements for
vehicular circulation; see General Plan
Policy M-10.3
(continued on next page)
2 ADA Improvements Implement ADA improvements
annually as identified in the ADA
Transition Plan.
3 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facility Improvements
Implement the Bicycle
Transportation Plan and other
bicycle network-related facility
improvements.
4 Bikeway
Enhancements and
Wayfinding Plan
Develop a plan that identifies and
prioritizes key City locations
where bicycle wayfinding
signage, bicycle parking and Bike
Share Program Depots would be
beneficial and most impactful.
5 McClellan Rd.
Sidewalk Improvement
- Phase 2
Construct sidewalk improvement
along McClellan Rd. between
Orange Ave. and San Leandro
Ave. where Phase 1 was unable to
complete them.
6 Sidewalk
Improvements –
Orange & Byrne
Acquire right-of-way as needed,
design and construct new
sidewalks on Orange Ave. and
Byrne Ave.
7 McClellan Rd.
Sidewalk Installation –
Rose Blossom Dr. to
Hwy 85 Overcrossing
Design and construct
approximately 650 LF of sidewalk
on the north side of McClellan
between 85 and Rose Blossom
General Plan Consistency Notes
5-Year CIP - Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 - First Year Programmed Projects
Page 2 of 6
#Project Title Project Description General Plan Consistency Review
Notes
8 City Bridge
Maintenance Repairs
Design and construct bridge
repairs recommended in the
Caltrans report along with
additional improvements to
prolong the useful life of the
bridges.
Support a safe pedestrian and bicycle
street network for people of all ages
and abilities; see General Plan Goal M-
3
Ensure safe and efficient pedestrian
and bicycle access to schools while
working to reduce school-related
congestion; see General Plan Goal M-5
Upgrade and enhance the City’s
infrastructure through the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
and requirements for development; see
General Plan Policy INF-1.1
Ensure that the City’s infrastructure is
enhanced and maintained to support
existing development and future
growth in a fiscally responsible
manner; see General Plan Goal INF-1
Promote improvements to City streets
that safely accommodate all
transportation modes and persons of
all abilities; see General Plan Goal M-2
9 Retaining Wall Repair
– Cordova Rd.
Design and construct a project to
replace the wood planks in the
existing retaining wall.
10 Retaining Wall
Replacement – Regnart
Rd.
Design and construct a new
retaining wall to replace existing,
including new surface and
subsurface drainage facilities.
11 Street Light Installation
– Annual Infill
Design and install street lights on
an as needed basis.
12 Street Light Installation
– Randy Ln. & Larry
Wy
Design and install street light
installations to fill gaps in street
light coverage.
13 Fiber Network
Expansion to Service
Center
Design for and install fiber optic
cable along Mary Ave. between
the intersection of Stevens Creek
Blvd. and Mary Ave. and the
Cupertino Service Center.
Ensure that the City’s infrastructure is
enhanced and maintained to support
existing development and future
growth in a fiscally responsible
manner; see General Plan Goal INF-1
Upgrade and enhance the City’s
infrastructure through the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
and requirements for development; see
General Plan Policy INF-1.1
(continued on next page)
14 McClellan Ranch –
Construct Trash
Enclosure
Install a wood fence structure
with gates on 3 sides of the
existing trash and debris boxes.
General Plan Consistency Notes
5-Year CIP - Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 - First Year Programmed Projects
Page 3 of 6
#Project Title Project Description General Plan Consistency Review
Notes
15 McClellan Ranch West
Parking Lot
Improvement
Design and construct a “green”
meadow-style parking lot that is
compatible with the creek
environment at McClellan Ranch
West.
Ensure that public infrastructure is
designed to meet planned needs and to
avoid the need for future upsizing.
Maintain a balance between future
growth needs and over-sizing of
infrastructure to avoid fiscal impacts or
impacts to other goals; see General
Plan Strategy INF-1.1.2
16 Stocklmeir House –
New Sewer Lateral
Install a new sewer lateral to
connect the Stocklmeir House to
the City’s sanitary sewer main.
17 Service Center -
Replacement
Administration
Building with EOC
Design and construct of a new
administration building with an
EOC.
18 Service Center Shed
No. 3 Improvements
Design and construct a
replacement for the existing Shed
No. 3 to accommodate the
landscape material storage and
organic waste storage
requirements.
19 Outfall Repair &Slope
Stabilization - Regnart
Rd.
Design and construct outfall
repairs and slope stabilization
along Regnart Rd.
Implement best practices in
stormwater management to reduce
demand on the stormwater network,
reduce soil erosion and reduce
pollution into reservoirs and the Bay;
see General Plan Goal INF-4
Create plans and operational policies
to develop and maintain an effective
stormwater system; see General Plan
Policy INF-4.1
(continued on next page)
20 Stevens Creek Bank
Repair – South of SCB
– Conceptual Design
Prepare a conceptual design for
repairs to creek banks that will
protect property from further
erosion and stabilize the bank,
and is compatible with existing
goals and requirements for the
creek corridor.
21 Storm Drain
Improvements - Byrne
Ave. & Stevens Creek
Blvd.
Design and construct new storm
mains at the designated locations
to increase the capacity of the
downstream portion of the system
and allow the newer upstream
portion of the system to connect
to it.
General Plan Consistency Notes
5-Year CIP - Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 - First Year Programmed Projects
Page 4 of 6
#Project Title Project Description General Plan Consistency Review
Notes
22 Storm Drain
Improvements –
Foothill
Blvd./Cupertino Rd.
Design and construct a parallel
system to the existing storm drain
system to provide additional
capacity as identified in an
Engineering Review of the storm
drain system.
23 Storm Drain Master
Plan Update
Prepare a master plan for the
City’s storm drainage system
which will identify areas for
improvement to bring the current
system into compliance with
current laws and regulations,
current land use and proposed
future land use.
24 Citywide Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
Prepare a long-range, citywide
parks and recreation system
master plan.
The City’s parkland acquisition
strategy should be based upon three
broad objectives:
Distributing parks equitably
throughout the City;
Connecting and providing access
by providing paths, improved
pedestrian and bike connectivity
and signage; and
Retaining and restoring creeks
and other natural open space
area;
See General Plan Policy RPC-2.1
Design parks to utilize natural features
and the topography of the site in order
to protect natural features and keep
maintenance costs low; see General
Plan Policy RPC-3.1
(continued on next page)
25 International Cricket
Ground - Feasibility
Study
Prepare a feasibility study for an
international cricket ground.
26 Inclusive Play Area -
Planning
This funding will be used to
explore key project components
such as suitable partnerships,
siting considerations, cost data,
and grant opportunities.
27 Lawrence-Mitty Park Develop a neighborhood park on
several acres of land adjacent to
Saratoga Creek, near the
intersection of Lawrence
Expressway and Mitty.
General Plan Consistency Notes
5-Year CIP - Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 - First Year Programmed Projects
Page 5 of 6
#Project Title Project Description General Plan Consistency Review
Notes
28 Memorial Park Master
Plan and Parking
Study
Develop a master plan for the
renovation of Memorial Park and
evaluate the parking needs for
Memorial Park, Senior Center and
the Quinlan Community Center.
Design parks appropriately to address
the facility and recreational
programming required by each special
area and neighborhood based on
current and future plans for the areas;
see General Plan Policy RPC-4.129Stevens Creek Corridor
Park Chain Master
Plan – McClellan Rd. to
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Study the various uses of public
lands along Stevens Creek for
optimal public use and operation.
30 Recreation Facilities
Monument Signs
Design and construct new
monument signs with lighting at
McClellan Ranch Preserve,
Blackberry Farm, Memorial Park
and Sports Center.
Create a full range of park and
recreational resources and preserve
natural resources; see General Plan
Goal RPC-1
Provide parks and recreational
facilities for a variety of recreational
activities; see General Plan Policy RPC-
2.5
Create a full range of park and
recreational resources and preserve
natural resources; see General Plan
Goal RPC-1
Provide parks and recreational
facilities for a variety of recreational
activities; see General Plan Policy RPC-
2.5
Explore the possibility of providing
additional access to existing facilities
such as gymnasiums, swimming pools
and tennis courts; see General Plan
Strategy RPC-2.5.2
(continued on next page)
31 Senior Center Repairs Design and construct repairs to
the kitchen in floor drains and to
replace the ballroom acoustical
panels; evaluate the roof
condition and potential solutions
to persistent rodent nesting.
32 Senior Center
Walkway Replacement
Design and construct a
replacement walkway from the
parking lot to the front door. The
pavers will be replaced with a
material that provides a more
consistent surface texture.
33 Sports Center –
Upgrades
Upgrades may include 1) court
light conversion to LED, 2)
replacement of monument sign
with a programmable electronic
sign, 3) miscellaneous other
upgrades of existing finishes.
General Plan Consistency Notes
5-Year CIP - Fiscal Years 2017-18 to 2021-22 - First Year Programmed Projects
Page 6 of 6
#Project Title Project Description General Plan Consistency Review
Notes
34 Tennis Court
Resurfacing – Various
Parks
Over successive years, design and
construct the resurfacing of the
tennis courts at Memorial Park,
Varian Park and Monta Vista
Park.
Design facilities to reduce maintenance
and ensure that facilities are
maintained and upgraded adequately;
see General Plan Policy RPC-7.3
35 Street Median
Irrigation & Plant
Replacement
Design and construct replacement
irrigation and planting of street
medians.
Promote efficient use of water
throughout the City in order to meet
State and regional water use reduction
targets; see General Plan Policy ES-
7.11
Ensure that tree planting and
landscaping along streets visually
enhances the streetscape and is
consistent with the vision for each
Planning Area;
See General Plan Policy LU-4.2
LU-13
Land Use and Community Design Element
CITYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES
Balanced Community
The City seeks to balance future growth and development
in order create a more complete community. This includes
ensuring a mix of land uses that support economic, social
and cultural goals in order to preserve and enhance
Cupertino’s great quality of life.
Policy LU-1.1: Land Use and Transportation
Focus higher land use intensities and densities within
a half-mile of public transit service, and along major
corridors.
Policy LU-1.2: Development Allocation
Maintain and update the development allocation table
(Table LU-1) to ensure that the allocations for various land
uses adequately meet city goals.
Strategy LU-1.2.1: Planning Area Allocations.
Development allocations are assigned for various Planning
Areas. However, some flexibility may be allowed for
transferring allocations among Planning Areas provided no
significant environmental impacts are identified beyond
those already studied in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for Community Vision 2040.
GOAL LU-1
CREATE A BALANCED COMMUNITY
WITH A MIX OF LAND USES THAT
SUPPORTS THRIVING BUSINESSES,
ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION,
COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS AND A
HEALTHY COMMUNITY
CHAPTER 3
LU-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
TABLE LU-1
CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION BETWEEN 2014-2040
Commercial (s.f.) Office (s.f.) Hotel (rooms) Residential (units)
Current
Built
(Dec 10, 2014)
Buildout Available Current
Built
(Dec 10, 2014)
Buildout Available Current
Built
(Dec 10, 2014)
Buildout Available Current
Built
(Dec 10, 2014
Buildout Available
Heart of the
City
1,351,730 2,145,000 793,270 2,447,500 2,464,613 17,113 404 526 122 1,336 1,805 469
Vallco
Shopping
District**
1,207,774 1,207,774 - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 148 339 191 - 389 389
Homestead 291,408 291,408 - 69,550 69,550 - 126 126 - 600 750 150
N. De Anza 56,708 56,708 - 2,081,021 2,081,021 - 123 123 - 49 146 97
N. Vallco 133,147 133,147 - 3,069,676 3,069,676 - 315 315 - 554 1,154 600
S. De Anza 352,283 352,283 - 130,708 130,708 ----66-
Bubb - - - 444,753 444,753 -------
Monta Vista
Village
94,051 99,698 5,647 443,140 456,735
13,595 - - - 828 878 50
Other 144,964 144,964 - 119,896 119,896 ----18,039 18,166 127
Major
Employers
---
109,935 633,053 523,118 ------
Citywide 3,632,065 4,430,982 798,917 8,916,179 11,470,005 2,553,826 1,116 1,429 313 21,412 23,294 1,882
** Buildout totals for Office and Residential allocation within the Vallco Shopping District are contingent upon a Specific
Plan being adopted for this area by May 31, 2018. If a Specific Plan is not adopted by that date, City will consider the
removal of the Office and Residential allocations for Vallco Shopping District. See the Housing Element (Chapter 4) for
additional information and requirements within the Vallco Shopping District.
LU-15
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Strategy LU-1.2.2: Major Employers. Reserve a develop-
ment allocation for major companies with sales office and
corporate headquarters in Cupertino. Prioritize expansion
of office space for existing major companies. New office
development must demonstrate that the development posi-
tively contributes to the fiscal well-being of the city.
Strategy LU-1.2.3: Unused Development Allocation.
Unused development allocations may be re-assigned to the
citywide allocation table per Planning Area, when develop-
ment agreements and development permits expire.
Strategy LU-1.2.4: Neighborhood Allocation. Allocate
residential units in neighborhoods through the building per-
mit process unless subdivision or development applications
are required.
Policy LU-1.3: Community Benefits Program
At the discretion of the City Council, additional heights
over the base height standard in gateways and nodes may
be approved up to the maximum heights as shown in the
General Plan Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1 of the
General Plan) in conformance with the Community Benefits
Program.
Strategy LU-1.3.1: Amendment. Update the General Plan,
Zoning Code and applicable Specific and Conceptual Plans
to codify the provisions of the Community Benefit Program.
Strategy LU-1.3.2: Retail Component. The retail com-
ponent in the Community Benefit Program shall be the
predominant use along the ground floor street frontage (for
public or private streets), and shall be of sufficient depth
and height to create a viable retail space(s).
Strategy LU-1.3.3: Development Agreement. Offers of
Community Benefit must be above and beyond project
design elements and on-site or off-site contributions
required as part of project environmental mitigations
LU-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
or Federal, State or local requirements as part of the
standard entitlement process. The details and conditions
of the Community Benefit will be achieved through the
Community Benefits Program and will be formalized
through a Development Agreement.
Policy LU-1.4: Land Use in all Citywide Mixed-Use
Districts
Encourage land uses that support the activity and character
of mixed-use districts and economic goals.
Strategy LU-1.4.1: Commercial and Residential Uses.
Review the placement of commercial and residential uses
based on the following criteria:
1. All mixed-use areas with commercial zoning will require
retail as a substantial component. The North De Anza
Special Area is an exception.
2. All mixed-use residential projects should be designed
on the “mixed-use village” concept discussed earlier in
this Element.
3. On sites with a mixed-use residential designation, resi-
dential is a permitted use only on Housing Element sites
and in the Monta Vista Village Special Area.
4. Conditional use permits will be required on mixed-use
Housing Element sites that propose units above the
allocation in the Housing Element, and on non-Housing
Element mixed-use sites.
Strategy LU-1.4.2: Public and Quasi-Public Uses. Review
the placement of public and quasi-public activities in lim-
ited areas in mixed-use commercial and office zones when
the following criteria are met:
1. The proposed use is generally in keeping with the goals
for the Planning Area, has similar patterns of traffic,
LU-17
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
population or circulation of uses with the area and does
not disrupt the operations of existing uses.
2. The building form is similar to buildings in the area
(commercial or office forms). In commercial areas, the
building should maintain a commercial interface by
providing retail activity, storefront appearance or other
design considerations in keeping with the goals of the
Planning Area.
Policy LU-1.5: Parcel Assembly
Encourage parcel assembly and discourage parcelization
to ensure that infill development meets City standards and
provides adequate buffers to neighborhoods.
Policy LU-1.6: Community Health through Land Use
Promote community health through land use and design.
Hillside TransitionApple Campus 228085280280858585SARATOGA280280280280280280280280Homestead Special AreaMaximum Residential DensityUp to 35 units per acre per General Plan Land Use MapMaximum Height30 feet, or 45 feet (south side between De Anza and Stelling)North Vallco Park Special AreaMaximum Residential Density25 units per acreMaximum Height60 feet Citywide Development SummaryCitywide Development AllocationHeart of the City Special AreaNorth De Anza Special AreaMaximum Residential Density25 units per acre Maximum Height45 feetMaximum Residential Density25 or 35 (South Vallco) units per acreMaximum Height45 feet, or 30 where designated by hatched line South De Anza Special AreaMaximum Residential Density25 (north of Bollinger) or 5-15 (south of 85) units per acreMaximum Height30 feetMonta Vista Village Special AreaBubb Road Special AreaVallco Shopping District Special AreaMaximum Residential DensityUp to 15 units per acre per General Plan Land Use MapMaximum HeightUp to 30 feetMaximum Residential Density20 units per acreMaximum Height45 feetWest of Wolfe RdMaximum Residential Density35 units per acreMaximum HeightPer Specific PlanEast of Wolfe RdMaximum Residential Density35 units per acreMaximum HeightPer Specific PlanSTEVENS CREEK BLVDWOLFE RD DE ANZA BLVDDE ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD RD85North Crossroads NodeMaximum Residential Density25 units per acreMaximum Height45 feetCity Center NodeMaximum Residential Density25 units per acreMaximum Height45 feet or as existing, for existing buildingsSouth Vallco Park Maximum Residential Density35 units per acreMaximum Height45 feet, or 60 feet with retailNorth Vallco Gateway West of Wolfe RdMaximum Residential Density25 units per acre Maximum Height60 feet East of Wolfe RdMaximum Residential Density25 units per acreMaximum Height75 feet (buildings located within 50 feet of the property lines abutting Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Ave. and Apple Campus 2 site shall not exceed 60 feet)North De Anza Gateway Maximum Residential Density35 units per acreMaximum Height45 feet85Stelling Gateway West of Stelling RdSee Homestead Special AreaEast of Stelling RdMaximum Residential Density35 units per acreMaximum Height45 feetOaks GatewayMaximum Residential Density25 units per acreMaximum Height45 feetFigure LU-1Community Form DiagramLegendCity BoundarySpecial Areas/NeighborhoodsHomesteadNorth Vallco ParkVallco Shopping DistrictNorth De AnzaSouth De AnzaBubb RoadMonta Vista VillageAvenues (Major Collectors)Boulevards (Arterials)Key IntersectionsNeighborhood CentersHeart of the CityHillside Transition0 800 1600 2400FeetNUrban Service AreaSphere of InfluenceUrban TransitionNotes:Building Planes:• Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope line drawn from the arterial/boulevardcurb line or lines except for the Crossroads area.• For the Crossroads area, see the Crossroads Streetscape Plan.• For projects adjacent to residential areas: Heights and setbacks adjacent to residential areas will be determined during project review.• For the North and South Vallco Park areas (except for the Vallco Shopping District Special Area): Maintain the primary building bulk below a 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 feet of setback for every 1 foot of building height) slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Homestead Road curb lines and below 1:1 slope line drawn from Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue curb line.Notwithstanding the heights and densities shown above, the maximum heights and densities for Priority Housing Sites identified in the adopted Housing Element shall be as reflected in the Housing Element.Avenues (Minor Collectors)
LU-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Mixed-Use Urban Villages
Many of the City’s Housing Element sites are located in major corridors to reduce traffic and
environmental impacts and preserve neighborhoods (Figure LU-1). Housing Element sites, which
are further identified and defined in the Housing Element, represent the City’s priority for resi-
dential development. Residential uses on sites with mixed-use zoning should be designed on the
“mixed-use village” concept discussed in below.
1. Parcel assembly. Parcel assembly of the site is required. Further parcelization is highly dis-
couraged in order to preserve the site for redevelopment in the future.
2. Plan for Complete Redevelopment. A plan for complete redevelopment of the site is
required in order to ensure that the site can meet development standards and provide appro-
priate buffers.
3. “Mixed-Use Village” layout. An internal street grid with streets and alleys using “transect
planning” (appropriate street and building types for each area), that is pedestrian-oriented,
connects to existing streets, and creates walkable urban blocks for buildings and open space.
4. Uses. Include a substantial viable, retail component. Retail and active uses such as restaurants,
outdoor dining, and entries are required along the ground floor of main street frontages. Mix
of units for young professionals, couples and/or active seniors who like to live in an active
“mixed-use village” environment. Office uses, if allowed, should provide active uses on the
ground floor street frontage, including restaurants, entries, lobbies, etc.
5. Open space. Open space in the form of a central town square with additional plazas and
“greens” for community gathering spaces, public art, and community events. The locations
and sizes will depend on the size of the site.
6. Architecture and urban design. Buildings should have high-quality, pedestrian-oriented archi-
tecture, and an emphasis on aesthetics, human scale, and creating a sense of place.
7. Parking. Parking in surface lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings. Underground
parking under buildings is preferred. Above grade structures shall not be located along major
street frontages. In cases, where above-grade structures are allowed along internal street
frontages, they shall be lined with retail, entries and active uses on the ground floor. All park-
ing structures should be designed to be architecturally compatible with a high-quality “town
center” environment.
8. Neighborhood buffers. Setbacks, landscaping and/or building transitions to buffer abutting
single-family residential areas.
LU-19
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Neighborhood Commercial Centers
Neighborhood Commercial Centers serve adjacent neighborhoods and provide shopping and gath-
ering places for residents. Retaining and enhancing neighborhood centers within and adjacent to
neighborhoods throughout Cupertino supports the City’s goals for walkability, sustainability and creat-
ing gathering places for people. Figure LU-1 shows the location of the Neighborhood Commercial
Centers in Cupertino. The Guiding Principles of sustainability and health in Community Vision 2040
support the retention and enhancement of neighborhood centers throughout the community, and
providing pedestrian and bike connections to them from neighborhoods. Mixed-residential use may
be considered if it promotes revitalization of retail uses, creation of new gathering spaces, and parcel
assembly. Housing Element sites represent the City’s priority for residential development. Residential
uses should be designed on the “mixed-use village” concept discussed in this Element.
LU-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Community Identity
The City will seek to promote community identity and
design consistency through the development review pro-
cess and infrastructure master plans.
Policy LU-2.1: Gateways
Implement a gateway plan for the city’s entry points (Figure
LU-2) and identify locations and design guidelines for gate-
way features. Look for opportunities to reflect the gateway
concept when properties adjacent to defined gateways are
redeveloped.
Policy LU-2.2: Pedestrian-Oriented Public Spaces
Require developments to incorporate pedestrian-scaled
elements along the street and within the development such
as parks, plazas, active uses along the street, active uses,
entries, outdoor dining and public art.
GOAL LU-2
ENSURE THAT BUILDINGS,
SIDEWALKS, STREETS AND PUBLIC
SPACES ARE COORDINATED TO
ENHANCE COMMUNITY IDENTITY
AND CHARACTERFOOTHILL BLVDSTELLING RDDe ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD ROAD
WOLFE RDPRUNERIDGE AVE
STEVEN S CREEK BLVD
BLANEY AVEMILLER AVEBO
L
L
I
NGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVEBUBB ROADPROSPECT
ROAD
85
280
TANTAU AVE Figure LU-2: Gateways
LU-21
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Site and Building Design
The City will seek to ensure that the site and building
design of new projects enhance the public realm (e.g.,
streets, parks, plazas and open space areas) and that there
is a focus on integrating connections to adjacent neighbor-
hoods, where appropriate.
Policy LU-3.1: Site Planning
Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to cre-
ate a network of connected internal streets that improve
pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space
and building layouts that support city goals related to
streetscape character for various Planning Areas and
corridors.
Policy LU-3.2: Building Heights and Setback Ratios
Maximum heights and setback ratios are specified in Figure
LU-1. As indicated in the figure, taller heights are focused
on major corridors, gateways and nodes. Setback ratios are
established to ensure that the desired relationship of build-
ings to the street is achieved. Where additional heights
above the base height are allowed, the Community Benefits
Program provides direction on requirements and the pro-
cess of how additional height may be allocated.
GOAL LU-3
ENSURE THAT PROJECT SITE
PLANNING AND BUILDING DESIGN
ENHANCE THE PUBLIC REALM
AND INTEGRATE WITH ADJACENT
NEIGHBORHOODS
LU-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-3.3: Building Design
Ensure that building layouts and design are compatible with
the surrounding environment and enhance the streetscape
and pedestrian activity.
Strategy LU-3.3.1: Attractive Design. Emphasize attrac-
tive building and site design by paying careful attention
to building scale, mass, placement, architecture, materials,
landscaping, screening of equipment, loading areas, sig-
nage and other design considerations.
Strategy LU-3.3.2: Mass and Scale. Ensure that the scale
and interrelationships of new and old development comple-
ment each other. Buildings should be grouped to create a
feeling of spatial unity.
Strategy LU-3.3.3: Transitions. Buildings should be
designed to avoid abrupt transitions with existing devel-
opment, whether they are adjacent or across the street.
Consider reduced heights, buffers and/or landscaping to
transition to residential and/or low-intensity uses in order to
reduce visual and privacy impacts.
Strategy LU-3.3.4: Compatibility. Ensure that the floor
area ratios of multi-family residential developments are
compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. Include a
mix of unit types and avoid excessively large units.
Strategy LU-3.3.5: Building Location. Encourage build-
ing location and entries closer to the street while meeting
appropriate landscaping and setback requirements.
Strategy LU-3.3.6: Architecture and Articulation. Promote
high-quality architecture, appropriate building articulation
and use of special materials and architectural detailing to
enhance visual interest.
Strategy LU-3.3.7: Street Interface. Ensure development
enhances pedestrian activity by providing active uses along
LU-23
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
a majority of the building frontage facing the street. Mixed-
use development should include retail, restaurant, outdoor
dining, main entries, etc. Residential development should
include main entrances, lobbies, front stoops and porches,
open space and other similar features.
Strategy LU-3.3.8: Drive-up Services. Allow drive-up
service facilities only when adequate circulation, parking,
noise control, architectural features and landscaping are
compatible with the expectations of the Planning Area, and
when residential areas are visually buffered. Prohibit drive-
up services in areas where pedestrian-oriented activity and
design are highly encouraged, such as Heart of the City,
North De Anza Boulevard, Monta Vista Village and neigh-
borhood centers.
Strategy LU-3.3.9: Specific and Conceptual Plans.
Maintain and update Specific/Conceptual plans and design
guidelines for Special Areas such as Heart of the City,
Crossroads, Homestead Corridor, Vallco Shopping District,
North and South De Anza corridors and Monta Vista
Village.
Strategy LU-3.3.10: Entrances. In multi-family projects
where residential uses may front on streets, require pedes-
trian-scaled elements such as entries, stoops and porches
along the street.
Policy LU-3.4: Parking
In surface lots, parking arrangements should be based on
the successful operation of buildings; however, parking to
the side or rear of buildings is desirable. No visible garages
shall be permitted along the street frontage. Above grade
structures shall not be located along street frontages and
shall be lined with active uses on the ground floor on inter-
nal street frontages. Subsurface/deck parking is allowed
provided it is adequately screened from the street and/or
adjacent residential development.
LU-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Streetscape Design
The City will seek to improve streetscapes throughout
Cupertino with attractive landscaping, and complete and
safe sidewalks.
Policy LU-4.1: Street and Sidewalks
Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks and pedestrian
and bicycle amenities are consistent with the vision for each
Planning Area and Complete Streets policies.
Policy LU-4.2: Street Trees and Landscaping
Ensure that tree planting and landscaping along streets
visually enhances the streetscape and is consistent for
the vision for each Planning Area (Special Areas and
Neighborhoods):
1. Maximize street tree planting along arterial street front-
ages between buildings and/or parking lots.
2. Provide enhanced landscaping at the corners of all arte-
rial intersections.
3. Enhance major arterials and connectors with landscaped
medians to enhance their visual character and serve as
traffic calming devices.
4. Develop uniform tree planting plans for arterials, con-
nectors and neighborhood streets consistent with the
vision for the Planning Area.
GOAL LU-4
PROMOTE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER
OF PLANNING AREAS AND
THE GOALS FOR COMMUNITY
CHARACTER, CONNECTIVITY AND
COMPLETE STREETS IN STREETSCAPE
DESIGN
LU-25
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
5. Landscape urban areas with formal planting
arrangements.
6. Provide a transition to rural and semi-rural areas in
the city, generally west of Highway 85, with informal
planting.
Connectivity
The City will ensure that employment centers and neighbor-
hoods have access to desired and convenient amenities,
such as local retail and services.
Policy LU-5.1: Neighborhood Centers
Retain and enhance local neighborhood shopping centers
and improve pedestrian and bicycle access to neighbor-
hoods to improve access to goods and services.
Policy LU-5.2: Mixed-Use Villages
Where housing is allowed along major corridors or neigh-
borhood commercial areas, development should promote
mixed-use villages with active ground-floor uses and public
space. The development should help create an inviting
pedestrian environment and activity center that can serve
adjoining neighborhoods and businesses.
GOAL LU-5
ENSURE THAT EMPLOYMENT
CENTERS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
HAVE ACCESS TO LOCAL RETAIL
AND SERVICES WITHIN WALKING OR
BICYCLING DISTANCE
LU-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-5.3: Enhance Connections
Look for opportunities to enhance publicly-accessible
pedestrian and bicycle connections with new development
or redevelopment.
Historic Preservation
Cupertino has a rich and varied cultural history; however,
only a few historic buildings and resources are preserved
today. The City seeks to encourage preservation of these
precious historic resources and encourage their enhance-
ment in the future.
Policy LU-6.1: Historic Preservation
Maintain and update an inventory of historically significant
structures and sites in order to protect resources and
promote awareness of the city’s history in the following
four categories: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites,
Community Landmarks and Historic Mention Sites (Figure
LU-5).
Policy LU-6.2: Historic Sites
Projects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of Interior
Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
GOAL LU-6
PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE
CITY’S HISTORIC AND CULTURAL
RESOURCES
LU-27
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
FOOTHILL BLVDSTELLING RDDe ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD ROAD
WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
BLANEY AVEMILLER AVEBOLLINGER RD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVEBUBB ROADPROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAU AVE Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Hanson Permanente
Monta Vista Neighborhood
Cupertino Historical Museum
Memorial Park, Community Center, Sports Complex
De Anza College
De Anza Industrial Park
Cupertino Civic Center
Vallco Shopping District
Vallco Industrial Park
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
Los Altos
Maryknoll Seminary
Snyder Hammond House
De La Vega Tack House
Baer Blacksmith
Enoch J. Parrish Tank House
Nathan Hall Tank House
Gazebo Trim
Union Church of Cupertino
Old Collins School
Miller House
Glendenning Barn
McClellan Ranch Barn
Seven Springs Ranch
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
12 13
13
De Anza Knoll
Doyle Winery
“Cupertino Wine Company”
Stocklmeir Farmhouse
Elisha Stephens Place
Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino
Hazel Goldstone Variety Store
Woelffel Cannery
Engles Grocery “Paul and Eddie’s”
Apple One Building
Baldwin Winery
Le Petit Trianon
and Guest Cottages
Interim City Hall
City of Cupertino Crossroads
St. Joseph’s Church
1
7
8
53
A
I
D
H
C
E
F
B
9
10
11
2
4
G
~11/2 Mile
West
6
2
1
3
4
8
12
7
14
2
10
1
11
4
5
13
3
9
6
0 1000
0 500
2000 3000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
City Boundary
Heart of the City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Historic Sites Commemorative Sites
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Community Landmarks
Montebello School, 1892
Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar,
now part of Ridge Vineyards
Picchetti Brothers Winery and Ranch
Woodhills Estate
1
2
3
4
Sites of Historic Mention
(outside city jurisdicition)
Figure LU-5
Historic Resources
LU-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-6.3: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites
and Community Landmarks
Projects on Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and
Community Landmarks shall provide a plaque, reader
board and/or other educational tools on the site to explain
the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall
include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built,
a written description and photograph. The plaque shall
be placed in a location where the public can view the
information.
Policy LU-6.4: Public Access
Coordinate with property owners of public and quasi-public
sites to allow public access of Historic and Commemorative
Sites to foster public awareness and education. Private
property owners will be highly encouraged, but not
required, to provide public access to Historic and
Commemorative Sites.
Policy LU-6.5: Historic Mention Sites
These are sites outside the City’s jurisdiction that have
contributed to the City’s history. Work with agencies that
have jurisdiction over the historical resource to encourage
adaptive reuse and rehabilitation and provide public access
and plaques to foster public awareness and education.
Policy LU-6.6: Incentives for Preservation of Historic
Resources
Utilize a variety of techniques to serve as incentives to fos-
ter the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Resources
including:
1. Allow flexible interpretation of the zoning ordinance
not essential to public health and safety. This could
LU-29
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
include land use, parking requirements and/or setback
requirements.
2. Use the California Historical Building Codes standards
for rehabilitation of historic structures.
3. Tax rebates (Milles Act or Local tax rebates).
4. Financial incentives such as grants/loans to assist reha-
bilitation efforts.
Policy LU-6.7: Heritage Trees
Protect and maintain the city’s heritage trees in a healthy
state.
Strategy LU-6.7.1: Heritage Tree List. Establish and
periodically revise a heritage tree list that includes trees of
importance to the community.
Policy LU-6.8: Cultural Resources
Promote education related to the city’s history through
public art in public and private developments.
LU-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Snyder Hammond House
22961 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Old Collins School
20441 Homestead Road -
Cupertino De Oro Club
Maryknoll Seminary
2300 Cristo Rey Drive
Glendenning Barn
10955 N Tantau Avenue –
Hewlett Packard
Baer Blacksmith 22221
McClellan Road – McClellan
Ranch Park
Gazebo Trim
Mary & Stevens Creek Blvd. –
Memorial Park
Nathan Hall Tank House
22100 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Enoch J. Parrish Tank House
22221 McClellan Road –
McClellan Ranch Park
De La Vega Tack House
Rancho Deep Cliff Club House
Union Church of Cupertino
20900 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Miller House
10518 Phil Place
Historic Sites
McClellan Ranch Barn
22221 McClellan Rd
Seven Springs Ranch
11801 Dorothy Anne Way
LU-31
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Commemorative Sites
Elisha Stephens Place
22100 Stevens Creek
Boulevard – Existing Plaque
Doyle Winery
“Cupertino Wine Company”
Visible from McClellan
Ranch Park (no photo
available)
De Anza Knoll
Off of Cristo Rey Drive
Le Petit Trianon and
Guest Cottages
1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard
– Foothill-De Anza
Community College,
Listed on the National Register
of Historic Places
Stocklmeir Farm House
22120 Stevens Creek Road
Woelffel Cannery
10120 Imperial Avenue –
Demolished
St. Josephs Church
10110 North de Anza
Boulevard
Apple One Building
10240 Bubb Road
Arroyo De San Joseph Cupertino
21840 McClellan Road –
Monta Vista High School,
State of California Historical
Landmark #800
The Crossroads
Intersection at Stevens Creek
Boulevard and De Anza
Boulevard
Interim City Hall
10321 South De Anza
Boulevard
LU-32
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Baldwin Winery
1250 Stevens Creek Boulevard
– Foothill-De Anza
Community College
Engles Grocery
“Paul and Eddie’s”
1619 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Hazel Goldstone Variety Store
21700 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Perrone Ranch Stone Cellar:
Ridge Vineyards
17100 Montebello Road –
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open
Space District
Woodhills Estate
Cupertino/Saratoga Hills,
End of Prospect Road –
Mid-Peninsula Regional
Open Space District, National
Register of Historic Places
Picchetti Brothers Winery
13100 Montebello Road –
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open
Space District
Montebello School
15101 Montebello Road
Sites of Historic Mention
Commemorative Sites (continued)
LU-33
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Arts and Culture
Cupertino history and diversity provides a rich background
for community art and culture. The City seeks to encour-
age support public art and the arts community through
development.
Policy LU-7.1: Public Art
Stimulate opportunities for the arts through develop-
ment and cooperation with agencies and the business
community.
Strategy LU-7.1.1: Public Art Ordinance
Maintain and update an ordinance requiring public art in
public as well as private projects of a certain size.
Strategy LU-7.1.2: Gateways. Promote placement of vis-
ible artwork in gateways to the city.
Strategy LU-7.1.3: Artist Workspace. Encourage the
development of artist workspace, such as live/work units, in
appropriate location in the city.
Note: see the Recreation and Community Services Element
for policies related to programming.
GOAL LU-7
PROMOTE A CIVIC ENVIRONMENT
WHERE THE ARTS EXPRESS AN
INNOVATIVE SPIRIT, CULTURAL
DIVERSITY AND INSPIRE COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION
LU-34
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Economic Development and Fiscal Stability
The City will seek to identify strategies and programs that
support and retain local businesses, attract new businesses
and investment, and ensure the long-term fiscal health of
the City.
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.
Strategy LU-8.2.1: Fiscal Impacts. Evaluate fiscal impacts
of converting office/commercial uses residential use, while
ensuring that the city meets regional housing requirements.
Policy LU-8.3: Incentives for Reinvestment
Provide incentives for reinvestment in existing, older com-
mercial areas.
Strategy LU-8.3.1: Mixed-use. Consider mixed-use (office,
commercial, residential) in certain commercial areas to
encourage reinvestment and revitalization of sales-tax
producing uses, when reviewing sites for regional housing
requirements.
Strategy LU-8.3.2: Shared or Reduced Parking. Consider
shared or reduced parking, where appropriate as incentives
to construct new commercial and mixed-use development,
GOAL LU-8
MAINTAIN A FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE
CITY GOVERNMENT THAT PRESERVES
AND ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF
LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS, WORKERS
AND VISITORS
LU-35
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
while increasing opportunities for other modes of
transportation.
Strategy LU-8.3.3: Infrastructure and Streetscape
Improvements. Consider infrastructure and streetscape
improvements in areas, such as the Crossroads or South
Vallco area to encourage redevelopment as a pedestrian-
oriented area that meets community design goals.
Strategy LU-8.3.4: High Sales-Tax Producing Retail Uses.
Consider locations for high sales-tax producing retail uses
(such as life-style and hybrid commodity-specialty centers)
provided the development is compatible with the surround-
ing area in terms of building scale and traffic.
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 main-
tain efficient operations in the delivery of services including,
community centers, parks, roads, and storm drainage, and
other infrastructure.
LU-36
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-9.1: Cooperation with Business
Establish and maintain a cooperative relationship with the
business community to support innovation and take advan-
tage of economic development opportunities.
Strategy LU-9.1.1: Economic Development Strategy Plan.
Create and periodically update an Economic Development
Strategy Plan in order to ensure the City’s long-term fiscal
health and stability and to make Cupertino an attractive
place to live, work and play.
Strategy LU-9.1.2: Partnerships. Create partnerships
between the City and other public and private organiza-
tions to promote the development of innovative technology
and businesses in the community and facilitate growth and
infrastructure improvements that benefits residents and
businesses.
Strategy LU-9.1.3: Economic Development and Business
Retention. Encourage new businesses and retain existing
businesses that provide local shopping and services, add
to municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality and
enhance the City’s physical environment.
Strategy LU-9.1.4: Regulations. Periodically review and
update land use and zoning requirements for retail, com-
mercial and office development in order to attract high-
quality sales-tax producing businesses and services, while
adapting to the fast-changing retail, commercial and office
environment.
GOAL LU-9
PROMOTE A STRONG LOCAL
ECONOMY THAT ATTRACTS AND
RETAINS A VARIETY OF BUSINESSES
LU-37
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Strategy LU-9.1.5: Incubator Work Space. Encourage
the development of flexible and affordable incubator work
space for start-ups and new and emerging technologies.
Strategy LU-9.1.6: Development Review. Provide efficient
and timely review of development proposals, while main-
taining quality standards in accordance with city codes.
Look for a solution-based approach to problems while
being responsive to community concerns and promote
positive communication among parties.
Policy LU-9.2: Work Environment
Encourage the design of projects to take into account the
well-being and health of employees and the fast-changing
work environment.
Strategy LU-9.2.1: Local Amenities. Encourage office
development to locate in areas where workers can walk or
bike to services such as shopping and restaurants, and to
provide walking and bicycling connections to services.
Strategy LU-9.2.2: Workplace Policies. Encourage public
and private employers to provide workplace policies that
enhance and improve the health and well-being of their
employees.
LU-38
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Regional Cooperation and Coordination
The City will work with regional agencies to coordinate with
regional plans and address community priorities by partici-
pating in the planning process.
Policy LU-10.1: Regional Decisions
Coordinate with regional and local agencies on planning,
transportation, economic development and sustainability
issues to ensure that the decisions improve fiscal health and
the quality of life for Cupertino residents and businesses.
Policy LU-10.2: Regional Planning Coordination
Review regional planning documents prior to making deci-
sions at the local level.
Policy LU-10.3: Neighboring Jurisdictions
Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions on issues of
mutual interest.
Policy LU-10.4: Urban Service Area
Work with neighboring jurisdictions to create boundaries
that are defined by logical municipal service areas.
Strategy LU-10.4.1: Tax-sharing agreements. Consider
entering into tax-sharing agreements with adjacent jurisdic-
tions in order to facilitate desired boundary realignments.
GOAL LU-10
PROMOTE EFFECTIVE
COORDINATION WITH REGIONAL
AND LOCAL AGENCIES ON
PLANNING ISSUES
LU-39
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU-10.5: Annexation
Actively pursue the annexation of unincorporated proper-
ties within the City’s urban service area, including the
Creston neighborhoods, which will be annexed on a parcel-
by-parcel basis with new development. Other remaining
unincorporated islands will be annexed as determined by
the City Council.
Access to Community Facilities and Services
The City will seek to improve connectivity and access to
public facilities and services, including De Anza College.
Policy LU-11.1: Connectivity
Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new
developments and community facilities. Review existing
neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for
students to walk and bike to schools, parks, and community
facilities such as the library.
Policy LU-11.2: De Anza College
Allow land uses not traditionally considered part of a col-
lege to be built at De Anza College, provided such uses
integrate the campus into the community, provide facilities
and services not offered in the City and/or alleviate impacts
created by the college.
GOAL LU-11
MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE
COMMUNITY ACCESS TO LIBRARY
AND SCHOOL SERVICES PROVIDED
BY OTHER AGENCIES
LU-40
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Hillsides
The City seeks to establish clear hillside policy in order
to provide for the realistic use of privately-owned hillside
lands, while preserving natural and aesthetic features.
Policy LU-12.1: Land Use Regulations
Establish and maintain building and development standards
for hillsides that ensure hillside protection.
Strategy LU-12.1.1: Ordinance and development review.
Through building regulations and development review, limit
development on ridgelines, hazardous geological areas and
steep slopes. Control colors and materials and minimize
the illumination of outdoor lighting. Reduce visible building
mass with measures including, stepping structures down the
hillside, following natural contours, and limiting the height
and mass of the wall plane facing the valley floor.
Strategy LU-12.1.2: Slope-density formula. Apply a slope-
density formula to very low intensity residential develop-
ment in the hillsides. Density shall be calculated based on
the foothill modified, foothill modified ½ acre and the 5-20
acre slope density formula. Actual lot sizes and develop-
ment areas will be determined through zoning ordinances,
clustering and identification of significant natural features
and geological constraints.
Strategy LU-12.1.3: 1976 General Plan-Previously des-
ignated Very Low Density: Semi-Rural 5-acre. Properties
previously designated Very Low-Density Residential: Semi-
Rural 5-acre per the 1976 General Plan may be subdivided
GOAL LU-12
PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE CITY’S
HILLSIDE NATURAL HABITAT AND
AESTHETIC VALUES
LU-41
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
utilizing that formula. Properties that have already been
since subdivided in conformance with the above designa-
tion have no further subdivision potential for residential
purposes.
Strategy LU-12.1.4: Existing lots in Foothill Modified and
Foothill Modified 1/2–acre Slope density designations.
Require discretionary review with a hillside exception for
hillside or R1 properties if development is proposed on
substandard parcels on slopes per the R1 and RHS zoning.
Policy LU-12.2: Clustering Subdivisions
Cluster lots in major subdivisions and encourage clustering
in minor subdivisions, for projects in the 5-20-acre slope
density designation. Reserve 90 percent of the land in
private open space to protect the unique characteristics of
the hillsides from adverse environmental impacts. Keep the
open space areas contiguous as much as possible.
Policy LU-12.3: Rural Improvement Standards in
Hillside Areas
Require rural improvement standards in hillside areas to
preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Improvement
standards should balance the need to furnish adequate util-
ity and emergency services against the
Strategy LU-12.3.1: Grading. Follow natural land contours
and avoid mass of grading of sites during construction,
especially in flood hazard or geologically sensitive areas.
Grading hillside sites into large, flat areas shall be avoided.
Strategy LU-12.3.2: Roads. Roads should be narrowed to
avoid harming trees and streambeds.
Strategy LU-12.3.3: Trees. Retain significant specimen
trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters and
integrate them into the developed site.
LU-42
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-12.4: Hillside Views
The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundary
of the valley floor provide a scenic backdrop, adding to the
City’s scale and variety. While it is not possible to guarantee
an unobstructed view of the hills from every vantage point,
an attempt should be made to allow views of the foothills
from public gathering places.
Strategy LU-12.4.1: Views from Public Facilities. Design
public facilities, particularly open spaces, so they include
views of the foothills or other nearby natural features, and
plan hillside developments to minimize visual and other
impacts on adjacent public open space.
Strategy LU-12.4.2: Developments near Public Space.
Located private driveways and building sites as far as pos-
sible from property boundaries adjoining public open space
preserves and parks to enhance the natural open space
character and protect plant and animal habitat.
Policy LU-12.5: Development in the County
Jurisdiction
Development in the County, particularly if located near
Cupertino’s hillsides and urban fringe area, should consider
the goals and policies in Community Vision 2040.
Strategy LU-12.5.1: County Development. Development
in these areas should be compatible with Cupertino’s
hillside policies of low-intensity residential, agricultural or
open space uses. Preservation of the natural environment,
clustering sites to minimize impact and dedication of open
space are encouraged. Visual impacts, access, traffic and
other impacts, and service demands should be assessed in
consultation with Cupertino’s goals and policies.
LU-43
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
PLANNING AREA GOALS AND POLICIES
As outlined in the Planning Areas chapter, Community
Vision 2040 organizes the city into 21 distinct Planning
Areas, divided into two categories: (1) Special Areas that
are expected to transition over the life of the General Plan
and (2) Neighborhoods where future changes are expected
to be minimal. The following goals, policies and strategies
are specific to the Planning Areas and provide guidance
for future change in accordance with the community vision.
Figure LU-1 shows maximum heights and residential densi-
ties allowed in each Special Area.
The City Council may grant height increases
above the maximum base height standard
in certain areas if a project includes
community benefits
LU-44
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Special Areas
Special Areas are located along major mixed-use corridors
and nodes that have access to a variety of different forms
of transportation. Future growth in Cupertino will be
focused in these areas to manage growth while minimizing
traffic, greenhouse gas and health impacts on the com-
munity. The discussion for each Special Area outlines goals,
policies and strategies related to land use, building form,
streetscape, connectivity, open space, landscaping, and the
urban/rural ecosystem in order to help implement the com-
munity vision for these areas.
LU-45
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Heart of the City Special Area
The Heart of the City will remain the core commercial cor-
ridor in Cupertino, with a series of commercial and mixed-
use centers and a focus on creating a walkable, bikeable
boulevard that can support transit. General goals, policies
and strategies will apply throughout the entire area; while
more specific goals, policies and strategies for each sub-
area are designed to address their individual settings and
characteristics.
Policy LU-13.1: Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides design stan-
dards and guidelines for this area, which promote a cohe-
sive, landscaped boulevard that links its distinct sub-areas
and is accessible to all modes of transportation.
Policy LU-13.2: Redevelopment
Encourage older properties along the boulevard to be
redeveloped and enhanced. Allow more intense develop-
ment only in nodes and gateways as indicated in the
Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1).
GOAL LU-13
ENSURE A COHESIVE, LANDSCAPED
BOULEVARD THAT SUPPORTS ALL
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION,
LINKS ITS DISTINCT AND ACTIVE
COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE
SUB-AREAS AND NODES, AND
CREATES A HIGH-QUALITY, DISTINCT
COMMUNITY IMAGE AND A VIBRANT
HEART FOR CUPERTINO
LU-46
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-13.3: Parcel Assembly
Encourage the assembly of parcels to foster new develop-
ment projects that can provide high-quality development
with adequate buffers for neighborhoods.
Policy LU-13.4: Neighborhood Centers and Activity
Areas
A majority of the commercial development allocation
should be devoted to rehabilitating neighborhood cen-
ters and major activity centers with a focus on creating
pedestrian-oriented, walkable and bikeable areas with invit-
ing community gathering places. Land uses between the
activity centers should help focus and support activity in the
centers. Neighborhood centers should be retrofitted and
redeveloped using the “neighborhood concept” discussed
earlier in this Element.
Policy LU-13.5: Land Use
The Heart of the City area allows a mix of retail, commer-
cial, office and residential uses. Specific uses are provided
in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. See Figure LU-1 for
residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-13.6: Building Form
Buildings should be high-quality, with pedestrian-oriented
and active uses along the street.
Policy LU-13.7: Streetscape and Connectivity
Create a walkable and bikeable boulevard with active uses
and a distinct image for each subarea.
Strategy LU-13.7.1: Streetscape. Provide active uses
along the street frontage, bike lanes, sidewalks that support
pedestrian-oriented activity, improved pedestrian crossings
at street intersections, and attractive transit facilities (e.g.,
bus stops, benches, etc.).
LU-47
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Strategy LU-13.7.2: Street trees and landscaping. Create
a cohesive visual image with street tree plantings along the
corridor, but with distinct tree types for each sub-area to
support its distinct character and function.
Strategy LU-13.7.3: Connectivity. Properties with a block
should be inter-connected with shared access drives.
Provide pedestrian paths to enhance public access to and
through the development. New development, particularly
on corner lots, should provide pedestrian and bicycle
improvements along side streets to enhance connections to
surrounding neighborhoods.
Strategy LU-13.7.4: Traffic calming. Evaluate options
on Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve the pedestrian
environment by proactively managing speed limits, enforce-
ment, and traffic signal synchronization.
Policy LU-13.7: Neighborhood buffers.
Consider buffers such as setbacks, landscaping and/or
building transitions to buffer abutting single-family residen-
tial areas from visual and noise impacts.
West Stevens Creek Boulevard Subarea
Policy LU-14.1: Land Use
Primary land uses include quasi-public/public facilities, with
supporting mixed commercial/residential uses.
GOAL LU-14
CREATE A PUBLIC AND CIVIC
GATEWAY SUPPORTED BY MIXED-
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
USES
LU-48
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-14.2: Streetscape
Street tree planting that supports an active, pedestrian-
oriented environment. Street tree planting should provide
a connection with the adjacent foothills with trees such as
oaks.
Policy LU-14.3: Gateway Concept
Buildings should be high-quality in keeping with the
gateway character of the area. Projects should provide or
contribute towards gateway signs and landscaping.
Policy LU-14.4: De Anza College Node
Buildings should be designed to fit into the surroundings
with pedestrian-orientation. Externalizing activities by
providing cafeterias, bookstores and plazas along the street
and near corners is encouraged.
Policy LU-14.5: Oaks Gateway Node
This is a gateway retail and shopping node. New residen-
tial and office uses, if allowed, should be designed on
the “mixed-use village” concept discussed earlier in this
Element.
Policy LU-14.6: Community Recreation Node
Contribute to the high-quality streetscape with trees,
sidewalks, building and site design, and active uses such as
main entries, lobbies or similar features along the street to
reinforce pedestrian orientation.
LU-49
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Crossroads Subarea
Policy LU-15.1: Crossroads Streetscape Plan
Create a streetscape plan for the Crossroads Subarea that
provides design standards and guidelines for an attractive,
walkable, vibrant shopping village, where commercial and
roadway design encourage pedestrian activity. The plan will
include the following elements:
1. Land use plan specifying the type, intensity and
arrangement of land uses to promote pedestrian and
business activity.
2. Streetscape plan that provides for an attractive pedes-
trian streetscape.
3. Design guidelines that foster pedestrian activity and a
sense of place.
Strategy LU-15.1.1: Uses. Include in this subarea pri-
mary uses such as retail, office and commercial. Ground
floor uses shall have active retail uses with storefronts.
Commercial office and office uses may be allowed on upper
levels. In the case of deep lots, buildings along the street
should provide retail and buildings in the back may be
developed with allowed uses. See Figure LU-1 for residen-
tial densities and criteria.
GOAL LU-15
CREATE AN ACTIVE, PEDESTRIAN-
ORIENTED SHOPPING DISTRICT WITH
VIBRANT RETAIL USES AND ENTRIES
ALONG THE STREET, OUTDOOR
DINING AND PLAZAS OR PUBLIC
GATHERING SPACES
LU-50
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy LU-15.1.2: Streetscape. Primary ground-floor
entrances shall face the street. The streetscape shall consist
of wide pedestrians sidewalks with inviting street furniture,
street trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting with banners, small
plazas, art/water features, pedestrian crosswalks with special
paving, and other elements identified in the Crossroads
Streetscape Plan.
Strategy LU-15.1.3: Building form. Buildings should be
moderately-scaled with high-quality, pedestrian-oriented
scaled, active uses along the street. Buildings in the
North Crossroads node may have taller heights per the
Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1).
Strategy LU-15.1.4: Shared parking. Require shared park-
ing and access arrangements throughout the area, with
overall parking standards reflecting the shared parking.
Strategy LU-15.1.5: De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek
Boulevard landmark. Secure landscape easements from
properties at the intersection of De Anza Stevens Creek
Boulevards for construction of a future landmark. The
landmark may include open space, landscaping and other
design elements at the corners. Land at the southeast cor-
ner will remain a publicly accessible park.
LU-51
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
City Center Subarea
Policy LU-16.1: City Center Node
Establish the City Center Node as a moderately-scaled,
medium-density mixed-use office, hotel, retail and residen-
tial area, with an integrated network of streets and open
space.
Strategy LU-16.1.1: Uses. A mix of uses including, office,
hotel, retail, residential and civic uses. The ground floor
of buildings along the street should be activated with
pedestrian-oriented, active uses including retail, restaurants,
and entries. See Figure LU-1 for residential densities and
criteria.
Strategy LU-16.1.2: Connectivity. New development
should improve the connectivity within the block and
with surrounding streets, including connections to the
Crossroads Subarea.
Strategy LU-16.1.3: Building form. Buildings should be
moderately-scaled to transition from existing taller buildings
to the scale of the surrounding area. Additional heights may
be approved in specific areas by the City Council as part of
the Community Benefits Program and per heights allowed
in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1). Taller build-
ings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the
surrounding area.
GOAL LU-16
MAINTAIN A MIXED-USE AND CIVIC
DISTRICT THAT WILL ENHANCE
COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND ACTIVITY,
AND SUPPORT THE CROSSROADS
SUBAREA
LU-52
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy LU-16.1.4: Gateway concept. Buildings should
be designed with high-quality architecture and landscaping
befitting the gateway character of the site.
Strategy LU-16.1.5: Open space. A publicly-accessible
park shall be retained at the southeast corner of Stevens
Creek and De Anza Boulevard and shall include public art,
seating areas and plazas for retail and restaurant uses along
the ground floor of adjacent buildings.
Policy LU-16.2: Civic Center Node
Create a civic heart for Cupertino that enables community
building by providing community facilities, meeting and
gathering spaces, public art, and space for recreation and
community events.
Central Stevens Creek Boulevard Subarea
Policy LU-17.1: Land Use
Allow a mix of uses including commercial, retail, com-
mercial office and limited residential uses. The ground
floor of buildings along the street should be activated with
pedestrian-oriented, active uses including retail, restaurants,
entries, etc. Neighborhood centers shall be remodeled
or redeveloped using the “neighborhood center” format
described earlier in this Element. See Figure LU-1 for resi-
dential densities and criteria.
GOAL LU-17
RETAIN AND ENHANCE AS A
WALKABLE, BIKEABLE, COMMERCIAL
MIXED-USE BOULEVARD WITH
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, OFFICE
AND LIMITED RESIDENTIAL USES
LU-53
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
East Stevens Creek Boulevard Subarea
Policy LU-18.1: Land Use
Allow regional commercial with retail, commercial, office
and hotels as the primary uses, with residential mixed-use
as a supporting use. Retail, restaurant and other actives
uses are highly encouraged on the ground floor facing
the street. In case of office complexes, active uses such
as entries, lobbies or plazas should be provided on the
ground floor along the street. Neighborhood centers shall
be remodeled or redeveloped using the “neighborhood
center” format described earlier in this Element. See Figure
LU-1 for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-18.2 South Vallco
Retain and enhance the South Vallco area as a mixed-use
retail, office and residential district with a pedestrian-
oriented, downtown atmosphere.
Strategy LU-18.2.1: Uses. Encourage a mix of retail,
commercial, office, residential and hotel uses. Provide
active retail uses on the ground floor facing the street or
outdoor pedestrian corridor with connections to adjacent
development. Office sites to the north of Vallco Parkway are
encouraged to provide retail uses. However, if retail is not
provided, office sites should provide entries and active uses
along the street frontage.
GOAL LU-18
CREATE A WALKABLE, BIKEABLE
MIXED-USE BOULEVARD WITH
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED REGIONAL
AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,
RETAIL, HOTEL AND OFFICE USES
LU-54
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy LU-18.2.2: Vallco Parkway. Vallco Parkway is
envisioned as a parkway with bike lanes, wide sidewalks,
street-trees and on-street parking. The street will connect to
a future street grid in the Vallco Shopping District.
Vallco Shopping District Special Area
The City envisions a complete redevelopment of the exist-
ing Vallco Fashion Mall into a vibrant mixed-use “town
center” that is a focal point for regional visitors and the
community. This new Vallco Shopping District will become
a destination for shopping, dining and entertainment in the
Santa Clara Valley.
Policy LU-19.1: Specific Plan
Create a Vallco Shopping District Specific Plan prior to any
development on the site that lays out the land uses, design
standards and guidelines, and infrastructure improvements
required. The Specific Plan will be based on the following
strategies:
Strategy LU-19.1.1: Master Developer. Redevelopment
will require a master developer in order remove the
obstacles to the development of a cohesive district with the
highest levels of urban design.
Strategy LU-19.1.2: Parcel assembly. Parcel assembly and
a plan for complete redevelopment of the site is required
prior to adding residential and office uses. Parcelization is
highly discouraged in order to preserve the site for redevel-
opment in the future.
GOAL LU-19
CREATE A DISTINCT AND
MEMORABLE MIXED-USE “TOWN
CENTER” THAT IS A REGIONAL
DESTINATION AND A FOCAL POINT
FOR THE COMMUNITY
LU-55
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Strategy LU-19.1.3: Complete Redevelopment. The
“town center” plan should be based on complete redevel-
opment of the site in order to ensure that the site can be
planned to carry out the community vision.
Strategy LU-19.1.4: Land use. The following uses are
allowed on the site (see Figure LU-1 for residential densi-
ties and criteria):
1. Retail: High-performing retail, restaurant and entertain-
ment uses. Maintain a minimum of 600,000 square feet
of retail that provide a good source of sales tax for the
City. Entertainment uses may be included but shall con-
sist of no more than 30 percent of retail uses.
2. Hotel: Encourage a business class hotel with conference
center and active uses including main entrances, lob-
bies, retail and restaurants on the ground floor.
3. Residential: Allow residential on upper floors with retail
and active uses on the ground floor. Encourage a mix
of units for young professionals, couples and/or active
seniors who like to live in an active “town center”
environment.
4. Office: Encourage high-quality office space arranged
in a pedestrian-oriented street grid with active uses on
the ground floor, publicly-accessible streets and plazas/
green space.
Strategy LU-19.1.5: “Town Center” layout. Create streets
and blocks laid out using “transect planning” (appropriate
street and building types for each area), which includes a
discernible center and edges, public space at center, high
quality public realm, and land uses appropriate to the street
and building typology.
Strategy LU-19.1.6: Connectivity. Provide a newly config-
ured complete street grid hierarchy of streets, boulevards
LU-56
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
and alleys that is pedestrian-oriented, connects to existing
streets, and creates walkable urban blocks for buildings
and open space. It should also incorporate transit facilities,
provide connections to other transit nodes and coordinate
with the potential expansion of Wolfe Road bridge over
Interstate 280 to continue the walkable, bikeable boulevard
concept along Wolfe Road. The project should also con-
tribute towards a study and improvements to a potential
Interstate 280 trail along the drainage channel south of the
freeway and provide pedestrian and bicycle connections
from the project sites to the trail.
Strategy LU-19.1.7: Existing streets. Improve Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more bike and
pedestrian-friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street
trees, improved pedestrian intersections to accommodate
the connections to Rosebowl and Main Street.
Strategy LU-19.1.8: Open space. Open space in the form
of a central town square on the west and east sides of the
district interspersed with plazas and “greens” that create
community gathering spaces, locations for public art, and
event space for community events.
Strategy LU-19.1.9: Building form. Buildings should have
high-quality architecture, and an emphasis on aesthet-
ics, human scale, and create a sense of place. Additional
heights may be approved in specific areas by the City
Council as part of the Community Benefits Program and per
heights allowed in the Community Form Diagram (Figure
LU-1). Taller buildings should provide appropriate transi-
tions to fit into the surrounding area.
Strategy LU-19.1.10: Gateway character. High-quality
buildings with architecture and materials befitting the
gateway character of the site. The project should provide
gateway signage and treatment.
LU-57
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Strategy LU-19.1.11: Phasing plan. A phasing plan that
lays out the timing of infrastructure, open space and land
use improvements that ensures that elements desired by
the community are included in early phases.
Strategy LU-19.1.12: Parking. Parking in surface lots shall
be located to the side or rear of buildings. Underground
parking beneath buildings is preferred. Above grade
structures shall not be located along major street frontages.
In cases, where above-grade structures are allowed along
internal street frontages, they shall be lined with retail,
entries and active uses on the ground floor. All parking
structures should be designed to be architecturally compat-
ible with a high-quality “town center” environment.
Strategy LU-19.1.13: Trees. Retain trees along the
Interstate 280, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard to
the extent feasible, when new development are proposed.
Strategy LU-19.1.14: Neighborhood buffers. Consider
buffers such as setbacks, landscaping and/or building tran-
sitions to buffer abutting single-family residential areas from
visual and noise impacts.
LU-58
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
North Vallco Park Special Area
The North Vallco Park Special Area is envisioned to become
a sustainable, office and campus environment surrounded
by a mix of connected, high-quality, pedestrian-oriented
retail, hotels and residential uses. Taller buildings could be
built at gateway nodes close to Interstate 280.
Policy LU-20.1: Land Use
This area is a major employment node with office, and
research and development uses. Retail and hotel uses are
allowed on the west side of Wolfe Road. Redevelopment of
the retail site at the corner of Wolfe and Homestead Roads
should be based on the neighborhood center concept.
Retail uses are not required on the Hamptons site. See
Figure LU-1 for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-20.2: Streetscape and Connectivity
Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road, Homestead
Road and Tantau Avenue should be coordinated with
planned improvements to improve pedestrian, bike and
transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance
the pedestrian environment with street trees, attractive
bus shelters and street furniture. The campus site should
provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street.
Future improvements to the Wolfe Road bridge should be
coordinated to preserve the vision for this area.
GOAL LU-20
SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS
ENVIRONMENT THAT IS SERVED BY
A MIX OF PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED
RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL USES
IN A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE
ENVIRONMENT
LU-59
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU-20.3: Building Form
Buildings in the retail and hotel area should provide active,
pedestrian-oriented uses along the street. Buildings should
transition to fit the scale of the surrounding area. Additional
heights may be approved in specific areas by the City
Council as part of the Community Benefits Program and per
heights allowed in the Community Form Diagram (Figure
LU-1). Taller buildings should provide appropriate transi-
tions to fit into the surrounding area. In addition to the
height limits established in the Community Form Diagram,
buildings abutting the campus shall incorporate appropriate
setbacks, landscaped buffering, and building height transi-
tions to minimize privacy and security impacts.
Policy LU-20.4: Community Amenities
Pedestrian-oriented retail and hotel development will
support a diverse population of workers and residents in
the area. Trail routes, and alternate trail routes to address
security and privacy concerns of major employers, shall be
developed to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections
to other destinations.
Policy LU-20.5: Gateway Concept
Building and landscape design should be of high qual-
ity and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into
Cupertino from Interstate 280 and points north. The project
should provide gateway signage and treatment.
Policy LU-20.6: Neighborhood Buffers
Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential
uses.
LU-60
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
North De Anza Special Area
The North De Anza Special Area is expected to remain
an employment node. Its designation as a Priority
Development Area (PDA) and the availability of restaurants
and services in the Heart of the City Special Area opens
opportunities to locate higher density office uses along the
corridor with connections to Stevens Creek Boulevard in a
pedestrian and bicycle-oriented format. The streets in this
area are envisioned to work as a walkable, bikeable grid
that enhance connections for school children and residents
from the Garden Gate neighborhood to Lawson Middle
School and other services on the east side.
Policy LU-21.1: Conceptual Plan
Amend the North De Anza Conceptual Plan to create a
cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and
guidelines for the North De Anza area.
Policy LU-21.2: Land Use
Primarily office, and research and development uses supple-
mented with limited commercial and residential uses. See
Figure LU-1 for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-21.3: Streetscape and Connectivity
North De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable bou-
levard with wide sidewalks with street trees and roadway
GOAL LU-21
MAINTAIN AN EMPLOYMENT NODE
SERVED BY A MIX OF PEDESTRIAN-
ORIENTED RETAIL, COMMERCIAL
AND HOTEL USES IN A WALKABLE
AND BIKEABLE ENVIRONMENT
LU-61
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings.
Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedes-
trian crossings are also envisioned along other streets in this
area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements
will also improve school routes from the Garden Gate
neighborhood to Lawson school to the east and provide
access to transit routes.
Policy LU-21.4: Building Design
Locate buildings along the street with parking areas to the
rear. Break up massing of large office buildings along the
street with pedestrian scaled elements and locate building
entries and active uses along the street frontage to improve
the pedestrian character of the area. Mixed-use buildings
should include entries, active uses and gathering spaces
along the street.
Policy LU-21.5: Gateway Concept
Building and landscape design should be of high qual-
ity and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into
Cupertino from Interstate 280 and points north.
Policy LU-21.6: Neighborhood Buffer
Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential
uses.
LU-62
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
South De Anza Special Area
The South De Anza Special Area will remain a predominant-
ly general commercial area with supporting existing mixed
residential uses with neighborhood centers providing ser-
vices to neighborhoods and nodes. The policies in this area
are intended to encourage parcel assembly to resolve the
fragmented and narrow lot pattern, promote active retail
and service uses, bike and pedestrian friendly improve-
ments, and connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods.
Policy LU-22-1: Conceptual Plan
Create a conceptual plan that combines the existing South
De Anza and Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Plans to cre-
ate a cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations
and guidelines for the South De Anza area.
Policy LU-22.2: Land Use
General commercial and retail uses with limited commercial
office, office and residential uses. Neighborhood centers
should be redeveloped in the “neighborhood center”
format discussed in this Element. See Figure LU-1 for resi-
dential densities and criteria.
GOAL LU-22
MAINTAIN A COMMERCIAL
BOULEVARD WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, COMMERCIAL OFFICE
AND RESIDENTIAL USES THAT
PROVIDE SERVICES AND GATHERING
SPACES FOR THE COMMUNITY
IN A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE
ENVIRONMENT
LU-63
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU-22.3: Parcel Assembly
Highly encourage assembly of parcels to resolve the frag-
mented and narrow lot pattern and encourage high-quality
development with adequate buffers for neighborhoods.
Policy LU-22.4: Streetscape and Connectivity
South De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable boule-
vard with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements
for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Side streets are also
envisioned with pedestrian and bicycle improvements to
ensure walkable connections from adjacent neighborhoods.
Policy LU-22.5: Shared Access
Since South De Anza is a heavily traveled route, proper-
ties in the same block should be connected with auto and
pedestrian access through shared access easements to
reduce impacts on the corridor.
Policy LU-22.6: Building Design
Located buildings and commercial pads along the street
with parking areas to the side and rear. Provide pedestrian-
scaled elements and active uses including retail, restaurants,
and entries along the street. Outdoor plaza and activity
areas can be located along the street with sidewalk and
street trees to buffer them from through traffic.
Policy LU-22.7: Gateway Concept
Building and landscape design should be of high qual-
ity and reflect the fact that this area has gateways from
Highway 85 and at the southern and eastern borders of
Cupertino.
LU-64
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-22.8: Neighborhood Buffer
Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential
uses.
Homestead Special Area
The Homestead Special Area will continue to be a predomi-
nantly mixed-use retail commercial area with residential
uses and neighborhood centers providing services to
local residents. Bike and pedestrian improvements to the
roadways in this area will provide better connections for
residents and workers to access services. Tree-lined streets
and sidewalks will provide an inviting environment and will
link existing and new uses.
Policy LU-23.1: Conceptual Plan
Create a conceptual plan for the Homestead cor-
ridor Special Area with a cohesive set of land use and
streetscape regulations and guidelines for the South De
Anza area.
GOAL LU-23
RETAIN A COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL BOULEVARD
THAT FORMS A GATEWAY INTO
CUPERTINO WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS, COMMERCIAL OFFICE
AND RESIDENTIAL USES THAT
PROVIDE SERVICES AND GATHERING
SPACES FOR THE COMMUNITY
IN A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE
ENVIRONMENT
LU-65
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU-23.2: Land Use
Primarily retail, commercial and residential uses, with some
limited quasi-public use. Redevelopment of neighborhood
centers should be based on the “neighborhood center”
concept discussed earlier in this element. See Figure LU-1
for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-23.3: Connectivity
Homestead Road is envisioned to become a boulevard with
bike and pedestrian improvements and new bicycle and
pedestrian crossings at De Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue,
Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue. This will provide better
access for people moving east/west through the city north
of Interstate 280, linking neighborhoods in the western
part of the city with Homestead High School, Homestead
Square Shopping Center and Apple Campus 2 to the east.
Policy LU-23.4: Building Design
Buildings will be located closer to the street with parking
mostly to the side and rear. In the case of larger sites,
large buildings may be placed behind parking; however a
substantial portion of the front of the site should be lined
with active uses such as retail/restaurant pads, and plazas.
Buildings should include pedestrian-oriented elements with
entries, retail, lobbies, and active uses along the street.
Parking areas along the street will be screened with street
trees. Residential buildings will provide stoops and porches
along the street and side streets. Additional heights may
be approved in specific areas by the City Council as part of
the Community Benefits Program and per heights allowed
in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1). Taller build-
ings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the
surrounding area.
LU-66
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-23.5: Gateway Concept
Building and landscape design should be of high quality
and reflect the fact that this area is a gateway into the
northern part of Cupertino.
Policy LU-23.6: Neighborhood Buffer
Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to
buffer development from adjoining single-family residential
uses.
Bubb Road Special Area
The Bubb Road Special Area is envisioned to become a
tree-lined avenue that is bike and pedestrian friendly with
an improved public and internal street grid, since it is a
well-traveled route by school children from the northern
and eastern sections of the city to the tri-school area to the
south, and increased foot traffic from workers in the area.
Policy LU-24.1: Land Use
Allowed uses in the Bubb Road Special Area will consist of
those described in the ML-RC ordinance with limited com-
mercial and residential uses.
GOAL LU-24
MAINTAIN AN EMPLOYMENT AREA
WITH LIGHT-INDUSTRIAL, AND
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
USES IN A WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE
ENVIRONMENT THAT CONNECTS
TO SURROUNDING NODES AND
SERVICES
LU-67
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU-24.2: Streetscape and Connectivity
Bubb Road is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable corridor
with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for
bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian and bike
improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also
envisioned along other streets in this area to create an
interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve
routes from the northern and eastern neighborhood to
the tri-school area, parks and services and reduce impacts
caused by to school and employment traffic.
Policy LU-24.3: Building and Site Design
Locate buildings along the street with parking areas to the
rear. Break up massing of large office buildings along the
street with pedestrian-scaled elements and locate building
entries and active uses along the street frontage to improve
the pedestrian character of the area.
Policy LU-24.4: Compatibility of Use
The compatibility of non-industrial uses with industrial uses
must be considered when reviewing new development.
Policy LU-24.5: Neighborhood Buffers
New industrial uses should provide building transitions,
setbacks and landscaping to provide a buffer for adjoining
low-intensity residential uses.
LU-68
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Monta Vista Village
The Monta Vista Village Special Area is envisioned to be
retained as a small town, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
area within Cupertino. As incremental change occurs, the
City will identify opportunities to enhance the areas uses
that are consistent with the small town character.
Policy LU-25.1: Conceptual Plan
Continue to govern Monta Vista’s commercial area through
the Monta Vista Design Guidelines. The guidelines provide
direction for architecture, landscaping and public improve-
ments. Create a Monta Vista Village Conceptual Plan to
with a cohesive set of updated regulations and guidelines
for this area.
Policy LU-25.2: Land Use
Encourage the commercial district to serve as a neighbor-
hood commercial center for Monta Vista Village and its
adjoining neighborhoods. Mixed-use with residential is
encouraged. The industrial area should be retained to
provide small-scale light industrial and service industrial
opportunities, while remaining compatible with the sur-
rounding residential and commercial uses. See Figure LU-1
for residential densities and criteria.
GOAL LU-25
RETAIN AND ENHANCE MONTA VISTA
VILLAGE’S SMALL TOWN CHARACTER
AS A PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED, SMALL
SCALE, MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL AREA
LU-69
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU-25.3: Building and Site Design
Encourage buildings to be designed in a way that promotes
the small-scale, older and mixed-use character of the
area. Buildings should be located along the street with
pedestrian-scale architecture and retail and active uses on
the ground floor. Parking should be located to the rear.
Strategy LU-25.3.1: Storefront appearance. Commercial
and office buildings shall include a storefront appearance to
the public street, and shall not be separated from the pub-
lic sidewalk by extensive landscaping or changes in eleva-
tion. Office buildings shall be designed to accommodate
future entrances from the sidewalk for future retail uses.
Strategy LU-25.3.2: Parking. Commercial properties
or commercial portions of properties may rely on public
parking on Pasadena and Imperial Avenues to meet their
off-site parking needs within the area bounded by Granada
Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Orange Avenue and the
Union Pacific right-of-way (see diagram to the right).
Policy LU-25.4: Street Design and Connectivity
Maintain Monta Vista Village as a walkable, bikeable mixed-
use neighborhood with sidewalks, street trees and roadway
improvements for bike lanes and sidewalks with routes to
the tri-school area. Automobile, pedestrian and bicycle
improvements are envisioned along other streets in this
area to create an interconnected grid and with new devel-
opment to remove street blockages and promote a network
of streets. On-street parking is encouraged. Roadway and
sidewalk improvements will also improve school routes from
the northern neighborhoods to the tri-school area.
Strategy LU-25.4.1: Interconnected access. Individual
properties shall have interconnected pedestrian and vehicle
access and shared parking.
CREEK BLVDSTEVENS Highway 85Area where property owners
can obtain credit for on-street
parking for commercial
activities.
GRANADA AVE
HERMOSA AVE
LOMITA AVE
ALMADEN AVE
SAN FERNANDO AVE
ALCAZAR AVE BUBB RDPASADENA AVEORANGE AVEMcCLELLAN RD IMPERIAL AVEDOLORES AVEDRIVEPHAR LAPMANN DRIVEBYRNE AVE
LU-70
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy LU-25.4.2. Residential streets. Residential street
improvements may have a semi-rural appearance based
on the Municipal Code requirements. Safe routes to school
streets, or any others designated by the City Council shall
be required to have sidewalks and street trees.
Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special
Areas
In addition to the major mixed-use corridors described
above, other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Areas are located
throughout the city. These include the following: west side
of Stevens Canyon Road across from McClellan Road; inter-
section of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard;
Homestead Road near Foothill Boulevard; northwest corner
of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue; and all other non-
residential properties not referenced in an identified Special
Area.
These areas are envisioned as neighborhood centers that
serve as shopping, services and gathering places for adja-
cent neighborhoods in a pedestrian-oriented environment
that encourages pedestrian and bicycle access.
Policy LU-26.1: Land Use
Retrofit or redevelop neighborhood centers using the
“neighborhood center” concept discussed earlier in this
GOAL LU-26
RETAIN COMMERCIAL AREAS
ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORHOODS
AND RETROFIT OR ENCOURAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AS
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS IN A
PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED AND BIKE-
FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT
LU-71
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Element. Areas that are not designated as “neighborhood
centers” are encouraged to provide commercial uses with
active uses such as entries, lobbies, seating areas or retail
along the street. See Figure LU-1 for residential densities
and criteria.
Policy LU-26.2: Building and Site Design
Encourage buildings to be designed in a pedestrian-ori-
ented format. Buildings should be located along the street
with pedestrian-scale architecture and retail and active uses
on the ground floor. Parking should be located to the sides
or rear. Buildings may be one to two stories in height. In
some instances where taller heights are allowed, buildings
may be three stories in height.
Policy LU-26.3: Street Design and Connectivity
Create neighborhood centers that are walkable, bikeable
areas with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improve-
ments for bike lanes and sidewalks to provide connections
to the neighborhoods that they serve.
Policy LU-26.4: Neighborhood Buffers
Encourage projects to include building transitions, setbacks
and landscaping to provide a buffer for adjoining low-
intensity residential uses.
LU-72
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Neighborhoods
The City has many neighborhoods, each with its own
distinctive character and setting. These neighborhoods
play a vital role in supporting Cupertino’s great quality of
life. Neighborhood goals and policies help preserve and
enhance the quality of life by protecting neighborhood
character and improving walking and biking connections
to parks, schools and services. Neighborhoods typically
offer a variety of housing choices to meet a spectrum of
community needs. The following general goal, policies and
strategies apply to all neighborhoods in the city.
Policy LU-27.1: Compatibility
Ensure that new development within and adjacent to resi-
dential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood
character.
Strategy LU-27.1.1: Regulations. Maintain and update
design regulations and guidelines for single-family devel-
opment that address neighborhood compatibility and
visual and privacy impacts.
Strategy LU-27.1.2: Neighborhood Guidelines. Identify
neighborhoods that have a unique architectural style,
historical background or location and develop plans that
preserve and enhance their character. Support special zon-
ing or design guidelines (e.g., the Fairgrove Eichler neigh-
borhood) and single-story overlay zones in neighborhoods,
where there is strong neighborhood support.
GOAL LU-27
PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER AND ENHANCE
CONNECTIVITY TO NEARBY
SERVICES TO CREATE COMPLETE
NEIGHBORHOODS
LU-73
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Strategy LU-27.1.3: Flexibility. When neighborhoods are
in transition, add flexibility for requirements for new devel-
opment that acknowledge the transition while continuing to
respect the existing neighborhood.
Strategy LU-27.1.4: Late Night Uses. Discourage late-
evening entertainment activities such as night-clubs in
commercial areas where parcels are especially narrow,
abut single-family residential development, and cannot
adequately provide visual and noise buffers.
Policy LU-27.2: Relationship to the Street
Ensure that new development in and adjacent to neighbor-
hoods improve the walkability of neighborhoods by provid-
ing inviting entries, stoops and porches along the street
frontage, compatible building design and reducing visual
impacts of garages.
Policies LU-27.3: Entries.
Define neighborhood entries through architecture, or land-
scaping appropriate to the character of the neighborhood.
Gates are discouraged because they isolate developments
from the community.
Policy LU-27.4: Connections.
Support pedestrian and bicycling improvements that
improve access with neighborhoods to parks, schools and
local retail, and between neighborhoods. Support traffic
calming measures rather than blocking the street to reduce
traffic impacts on neighborhoods.
Policy LU-27.5: Streets.
Determine appropriate street widths, bike lane, sidewalk
and streetlight design to define the unique character of
neighborhoods, where appropriate.
LU-74
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy LU-27.6. Multi-family Residential Design. Maintain
an attractive, livable environment for multi-family dwellings.
Strategy LU-27.6.1: Provide Active and Passive Outdoor
Areas in Multi-Family Residential Development. Allow
public access to the common outdoor areas wherever
possible.
Strategy LU-27.6.2: Ordinance Updates. Update the
Planned Development (residential) and R-3 ordinances to
achieve the policies and strategies applicable to multi-
family development in neighborhoods.
Policy LU-27.6: Compatibility of Lots
Ensure that zoning, subdivision and lot-line adjustment
requests related to lot size or lot design consider the need
to preserve neighborhood lot patterns.
Strategy LU-27.6.1: Lot Size. Ensure that subdivision and
lot-line adjustment requests respect the neighborhood lot
size patterns. Consider revisions to lot size requirements if
the neighborhood lot pattern is different from the zoning
requirements.
Strategy LU-27.6.2: Flag Lots. Allow flag lots only in cases
where they are the sole alternative to integrate subdivisions
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy LU-27.7: Protection
Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light
and visually intrusive effects from more intense develop-
ment with landscape buffers, site design, setbacks and
other appropriate measures.
Policy LU-27.8: Amenities and Services
Improve equitable distribution of community amenities
such as parks and access to shopping within walking and
bicycling distance of neighborhoods.
LU-75
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Inspiration Heights Neighborhood
The Inspiration Heights neighborhood will continue to be a
low-intensity and hillside residential area. Future develop-
ment should consider preservation of hillsides, riparian
corridors, and plant and animal wildlife habitat through sen-
sitive site and building design. This area has developments
that were annexed from the county. Legal, non-conforming
uses and buildings in such areas are granted additional
flexibility.
Policy LU-28.1: Connectivity
Improve bicycle and pedestrian environment along Foothill
Boulevard and Stevens Canyon Road to improve neighbor-
hood connectivity to services as well for hikers and bikers
accessing natural open space areas in the vicinity.
Policy LU-28.2: Merriman-Santa Lucia Neighborhood
Allow legal, non-conforming duplexes to remain in the area
bounded by Santa Lucia Road, Alcalde Road and Foothill
Boulevard.
GOAL LU-28
RETAIN INSPIRATION HEIGHTS AS A
LOW-INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA
IN A NATURAL, HILLSIDE SETTING
LU-76
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Oak Valley Neighborhood
Policy LU-29.1: Development Intensity
Require development intensity for the single-family Oak
Valley neighborhood to be consistent with the development
agreement that includes the use permit and other approv-
als. The development agreement describes development
areas, intensity and styles of development, public park
dedication, tree protection, access and historic preserva-
tion. The theme of the approvals is to balance development
with environmental protection by clustering development,
setting it back from sensitive environmental areas and pre-
serving large areas as permanent open space.
Policy LU-29.2: Design Elements
Require buildings to reflect the natural hillside setting
as required in residential hillside zones with traditional
architectural styles and natural materials and colors. Larger
building elements should be scaled to respect the existing
development in the surrounding area.
GOAL LU-29
RETAIN AND ENHANCE THE
OAK VALLEY AS A UNIQUE
NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDED
BY NATURAL HILLSIDE AREAS AND
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPACE
LU-77
CHAPTER 3
Land Use and Community Design Element
Fairgrove Neighborhood
Policy LU-30.1: Development Standards
Require all new construction to conform to the R1-e zoning
(Single-Family Residential–Eichler).
Policy LU-30.2: Design Guidelines
Encourage residents to incorporate the design guidelines
illustrated in the Eichler Design Guidelines.
GOAL LU-30
PRESERVE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER
OF THE EICHLER HOMES IN THE
FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD
M-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
GOALS AND POLICIES
Regional Coordination
Regional transportation and land use decisions affect the
operation of the transportation network in Cupertino. A key
consideration of the General Plan is for the City to partici-
pate in regional planning initiatives in order to coordinate
local improvements with regional initiatives, advocate for
Cupertino’s needs, and take advantage of programs that
can support Cupertino’s transportation infrastructure.
Policy M-1.1: Regional Transportation Planning
Participate in regional transportation planning processes to
develop programs consistent with the goals and policies
of Cupertino’s General Plan. Work with neighboring cities
to address regional transportation and land use issues of
mutual interest.
Policy M-1.2: Transportation Impact Analysis
Participate in the development of new multi-modal analysis
methods and impact thresholds as required by Senate Bill
743.
Policy M-1.3: Regional Trail Development
Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system
of trails and pathways consistent with regional systems,
GOAL M-1
ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN REGIONAL
PLANNING PROCESSES TO
COORDINATE LOCAL PLANNING
AND TO ADVOCATE FOR DECISIONS
THAT MEET AND COMPLEMENT THE
NEEDS OF CUPERTINO
M-17
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge
Trail.
Complete Streets
Complete Streets policies encourage the design of streets
that respond to the needs of all members of the com-
munity, balance different modes of transportation, promote
the health and well-being of the community, and support
environmental sustainability.
Policy M-2.1: Street Design
Adopt and maintain street design standards to optimize
mobility for all transportation modes including automobiles,
walking, bicycling and transit.
Policy M-2.2: Adjacent Land Use
Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking
and bicycle lanes, and sidewalks to complement adjacent-
land uses to keep with the aesthetic vision of the Planning
Area. Improvement standards shall also consider the urban,
suburban and rural environments found within the city.
Strategy M-2.2.1: Rural Road Improvement Standards.
Consider candidate rural roads and develop specific street
improvement standards that preserve the rural character
of these streets. Rural roads would typically feature natural
landscaping, no sidewalks and narrow unpaved shoulders.
GOAL M-2
PROMOTE IMPROVEMENTS
TO CITY STREETS THAT
SAFELY ACCOMMODATE ALL
TRANSPORTATION MODES AND
PERSONS OF ALL ABILITIES
M-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy M-2.2.2: Semi-Rural Road Improvement
Standards. Consider candidate semi-rural roads where
curb and gutter improvements, and no sidewalks, are
appropriate.
Strategy M-2.2.3: Urban Road Improvement Standards.
Develop urban improvement standards for arterials such
as Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards. In these areas,
standards may include wide sidewalks, tree wells, seating,
bike racks and appropriate street furniture.
Policy M-2.3: Connectivity
Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve
connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and
services, and foster a sense of community.
Policy M-2.4: Community Impacts
Reduce traffic impacts and support alternative modes of
transportation in neighborhoods and around schools, parks
and community facilities rather than constructing barriers
to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a demon-
strated safety or over-whelming through traffic problem and
there are no acceptable alternatives since street closures
move the problem from one street to another.
Policy M-2.5: Public Accessibility
Ensure all new public and private streets are publicly acces-
sible to improve walkability and reduce impacts on existing
streets.
M-19
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
Walkability and Bikeability
Walkability and bikeability policies encourage a livable,
healthy, sustainable and connected city with a safe and
comfortable pedestrian network among its various neigh-
borhoods, parks, trails, employment centers, community
facilities, neighborhood centers and commercial centers.
Policy M-3.1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan,
which outlines policies and improvements to streets, exten-
sion of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people
of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis, and as shown
in Figure M-1.
Policy M-3.2: Development
Require new development and redevelopment to increase
connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections
to public amenities, neighborhoods, shopping and employ-
ment destinations throughout the city.
Policy M-3.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings
Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and pathways at
key locations across physical barriers such as creeks, high-
ways and road barriers.
Policy M-3.4: Street Widths
Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian and bike connec-
tivity by limiting street widening purely for automobiles as a
means of improving traffic flow.
GOAL M-3
SUPPORT A SAFE PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE STREET NETWORK FOR
PEOPLE OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES
M-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy M-3.5: Curb Cuts
Minimize the number and the width of driveway openings.
Strategy M-3.5.1: Shared Driveway Access. Encourage
property owners to use shared driveway access and inter-
connected roads within blocks, where feasible. Require
driveway access closures, consolidations or both when a
site is remodeled or redeveloped.
Strategy M-3.5.2: Direct Access from Secondary Streets.
Encourage property with frontages on major and second-
ary streets to provide direct access to driveways from the
secondary street.
Policy M-3.6: Safe Spaces for Pedestrians
Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for
pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances.
Policy M-3.7: Capital Improvement Program
Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and eliminate gaps along the network pedestrian and
bicycle as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Policy M-3.8: Bicycle Parking
Require new development to provide public and private
bicycle parking.
Policy M-3.9: Outreach
Actively engage the community in promoting walking and
bicycling through education, encouragement and outreach
on improvement projects and programs.
Policy M-3.10: Quarry Operations
Continue enforcement of truck traffic speeds from Stevens
Creek and the Lehigh Cement Plant on Stevens Canyon
Road, and Stevens Creek and Foothill Boulevards.
M-21
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
Transit
Transit policies encourage planning and coordination of
regional and local transit services, both public and private,
to accommodate diverse community needs and to make
transit a safe, comfortable and efficient option.
Policy M-4.1: Transit Agencies
Coordinate with VTA and to improve transportation service,
infrastructure and access in the city, and to connect to
transportation facilities such as Caltrain and VTA light rail
stations.
Policy M-4.2: Local Transportation Services
Create or partner with transit providers, employers,
educational institutions, and major commercial entities to
minimize gaps within local transportation services.
Policy M-4.3: Connecting Major Special Areas
Identify and implement new or enhanced transit services
to connect major Special Areas including De Anza College,
North Vallco Park, North De Anza, South Vallco Park,
Crossroads, City Center and Civic Center.
Policy M-4.4: Transit Facilities with New
Development
Work with VTA and/or major developments to ensure all
new development projects include amenities to support
GOAL M-4
PROMOTE LOCAL AND REGIONAL
TRANSIT THAT IS EFFICIENT,
FREQUENT AND CONVENIENT AND
REDUCES TRAFFIC IMPACTS
M-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
public transit including bus stop shelters, space for transit
vehicles as appropriate and attractive amenities such as
trash receptacles, seating and lighting.
Policy M-4.5: Access to Transit Services
Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with
local transit goals to improve transit as a viable alternative
to driving.
Policy M-4.6: Bus and Shuttle Programs
Work with large regional employers and private commuter
bus/shuttle programs to provide safe pick-up, drop-off, and
park and rides in order to reduce single occupancy vehicle
trips.
Safe Routes to Schools
Safe routes to schools policies protect the safety of school
children and promote health, environmental sustainability
and social interaction. They leverage local, regional and
national Safe Routes to Schools Program resources to sup-
port increased walking and bicycling to schools.
M-23
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
Policy M-5.1: Safe Routes to Schools
Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all schools
serving the city.
Strategy M-5.1.1. Coordination with School Districts.
Coordinate with the School Districts to develop plans and
programs that encourage car/van-pooling, stagger hours of
adjacent schools, establish drop-off locations, and encour-
age walking and bicycling to school.
Strategy M-5.1.2. Teen Commission. Encourage the Teen
Commission to work with schools to encourage year-round
programs to incentivize walking and biking to school.
Policy M-5.2: Prioritizing Projects
Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements
include projects to enhance safe accessibility to schools.
Policy M-5.3: Connections to Trails
Connect schools to the citywide trail system.
Policy M-5.4: Education
Support education programs that promote safe walking and
bicycling to schools.
GOAL M-5
ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS
TO SCHOOLS WHILE WORKING
TO REDUCE SCHOOL-RELATED
CONGESTION
M-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Vehicle Parking
Vehicle parking policies encourage efficient and adequate
parking, avoid negative effects on the pedestrian environ-
ment or surrounding neighborhoods, and support the City’s
goals for Complete Streets, walkability, bikeability and
effective transit.
Policy M-6.1: Parking Codes
Maintain efficient and updated parking standards to
ensure that development provides adequate parking, both
on-street and off-street depending on the characteristics
of the development, while also reducing reliance on the
automobile.
Policy M-6.2: Off-Street Parking
Ensure new off-street parking is properly designed and
efficiently used.
GOAL M-6
PROMOTE INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES
TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND
ADEQUATE VEHICLE PARKING
M-25
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
Transportation Impact Analysis
Transportation Impact Analysis policies enable effective,
informed transportation planning by using a more balanced
system of indicators, data and monitoring to evaluate the
city’s multi-modal transportation system and optimize travel
by all transportation modes.
Policy M-7.1: Multi-Modal Transportation Impact
Analysis
Follow guidelines set by the VTA related to transportation
impact analyses, while conforming to State goals for multi-
modal performance targets.
Policy M-7.2: Protected Intersections
Consider adopting a Protected Intersection policy which
would identify intersections where improvements would not
be considered which would degrade levels of service for
non-vehicular modes of transportation. Potential locations
include intersections in Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
and other areas where non-vehicular transportation is a key
consideration.
GOAL M-7
REVIEW AND UPDATE TIA POLICIES
AND GUIDELINES THAT ALLOW FOR
ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION FOR
ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING AUTOMOBILES,
WALKING, BICYCLING AND TRANSIT
M-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Quality
Greenhouse gas emissions and air quality policies in this
Element work in tandem with other General Plan policies
to reduce municipal and community-wide greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air quality throughout Cupertino.
Policy M-8.1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Promote transportation policies that help to reduce green-
house gas emissions.
Policy M-8.2: Land Use
Support development and transportation improvements
that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per
capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Policy M-8.3: Transportation System Management
(TSM) Programs
Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the trans-
portation infrastructure including strategic right-of-way
improvements, intelligent transportation systems and opti-
mization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.
GOAL M-8
PROMOTE POLICIES TO HELP
ACHIEVE STATE, REGIONAL
AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY AND
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION
REDUCTION TARGETS
M-27
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
Policy M-8.4: Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Programs
Require large employers to develop and maintain TDM pro-
grams to reduce vehicle trips generated by their employees
and develop a tracking method to monitor results.
Policy M-8.5: Design of New Developments
Encourage new commercial developments to provide
shared office facilities, cafeterias, daycare facilities, lunch-
rooms, showers, bicycle parking, home offices, shuttle
buses to transit facilities and other amenities that encour-
age the use of transit, bicycling or walking as commute
modes to work. Provide pedestrian pathways and orient
buildings to the street to encourage pedestrian activity.
Policy M-8.6: Alternative Fuel Charging Stations
Develop a city-wide strategy to encourage the construction
of a network of public and private alternative fuel vehicle
charging/fueling stations.
M-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Roadway System Efficiency
Roadway system efficiency policies make effective use
of roadway capacity by encouraging strategic roadway
improvements and complementary policies promoting tran-
sit, walking, bicycling and complete streets.
Policy M-9.1: Efficient Automobile Infrastructure
Strive to maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure by
locating appropriate land uses along roadways and retrofit-
ting streets to be accessible for all modes of transportation.
Policy M-9.2: Reduced Travel Demand
Synchronization of Traffic Signals. Enhance the synchroniza-
tion of traffic signals on major streets to improve traffic flow
and reduce congestion.
Policy M-9.3: Street Width
Except as required by environmental review for new devel-
opments, limit widening of streets as a means of improving
traffic efficiency and focus instead on operational improve-
ments to preserve community character.
Strategy M-9.3.1. Wolfe Road Overcrossing. Consider
alternate designs for the Wolfe Road/I-280 Interchange
(e.g., from partial cloverleaf design to diamond design)
when evaluating the need to widen the freeway
overcrossing.
GOAL M-9
PROMOTE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT
USE OF THE CITY’S TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK AND SERVICES
M-29
CHAPTER 5
Mobility Element
Strategy M-9.3.2. Streetscape Design. When reviewing
the widening of an existing street, consider the aesthetic
vision of the Planning Area and incorporate to the extent
feasible appropriate landscaping and pedestrian/bicycle
amenities.
Transportation Infrastructure
Transportation infrastructure policies promote safe, attrac-
tive and well-maintained facilities for walking, bicycling,
transit and automobiles.
Policy M-10.1: Transportation Improvement Plan
Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation
improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to
meet the City’s needs.
Policy M-10.2: Transportation Impact Fee
Ensure sustainable funding levels for the Transportation
Improvement Plan by enacting a transportation impact fee
for new development.
GOAL M-10
ENSURE THAT THE CITY’S
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
IS WELL-MAINTAINED FOR ALL
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THAT PROJECTS ARE PRIORITIZED ON
THEIR ABILITY TO MEET THE CITY’S
MOBILITY GOALS
M-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy M-10.3: Multi-Modal Improvements
Integrate the financing, design and construction of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities with street projects. Build
pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the same time as
improvements for vehicular circulation.
Policy M-10.4: Roadway Maintenance Funding
Identify and secure new funding sources to fund the on-
going routine maintenance of roadways.
ES-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
evaluating all aspects of new development; mobility and
infrastructure improvements; building design and
operation; streetscapes and landscaping; and citywide
land use planning.
4. Community Involvement. The City will encourage
community participation in the planning and
implementation of sustainability-related programs.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Planning and Regional Coordination
The City seeks to coordinate its local sustainability and
greenhouse gas reduction planning efforts with Federal,
State and regional plans and programs to ensure a con-
sistent, integrated and efficient approach to a sustainable
future.
Policy ES-1.1: Principles of Sustainability
Incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s
planning, infrastructure and development process in order
to improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and meet the needs of the community without
compromising the needs of future generations.
Strategy ES-1.1.1: Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt,
implement and maintain a Climate Action Plan to attain
greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law
and regional requirements. This qualified greenhouse gas
emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will
allow for future project CEQA streamlining and will identify
measures to:
GOAL ES-1
ENSURE A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ES-15
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
• Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency;
• Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alterna-
tive transportation;
• Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable
energy resources;
• Increase citywide water conservation and recycled water
use;
• Accelerate Resource Recovery through expanded recy-
cling, composting, extended producer responsibility and
procurement practices; and
• Promote and incentivize each of those efforts to maxi-
mize community participation and impacts;
• Integrate multiple benefits of green infrastructure with
climate resiliency and adaptation.
Strategy ES-1.1.2: CAP and Sustainability Strategies
Implementation. Periodically review and report on the
effectiveness of the measures outlined in the CAP and the
strategies in this Element. Institutionalize sustainability by
developing a methodology to ensure all environmental,
social and lifecycle costs are considered in project, pro-
gram, policy and budget decisions.
Strategy ES-1.1.3: Climate Adaptation and Resiliency.
Conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and set
preparedness goals and strategies to safeguard human
health and community assets susceptible to the impacts
of a changing climate (i.e. increased drought, wildfires,
flooding). Incorporate these critical forecasting tools and
directives into all relevant Incorporate these into all relevant
plans, including the Emergency Preparedness Plan, Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dam Failure Plan, Climate Action
Plan, Watershed Protection Plan, and Energy Assuredness
Plan.
ES-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy ES-1.2: Regional Growth and Transportation
Coordination
Coordinate with local and regional agencies to prepare
updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including
the Regional Housing Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA),
One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
Strategy ES-1.2.1: Local Plan Consistency with Regional
Plans. Update and maintain local plans and strategies so
they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for
State transportation and project CEQA streamlining.
Energy Sustainability
Since energy consumption is the largest contributor to GHG
emissions, the City seeks to conserve energy to reach state
and regional emissions targets.
Policy ES-2.1: Conservation and Efficient Use of
Energy Resources
Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient
use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new
and existing residences, businesses, industrial and public
uses.
Strategy ES-2.1.1: Coordination. Continue to evaluate,
and revise as necessary, applicable City plans, codes and
procedures for inclusion of Federal, State and regional
requirements and conservation targets.
Strategy ES-2.1.2: Comprehensive Energy Management.
Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy
GOAL ES-2
PROMOTE CONSERVATION OF
ENERGY RESOURCES
ES-17
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and
equipment to achieve the energy goals established in the
City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and
report findings as part of the Climate Action Plan reporting
schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally
Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are
achieved through all future procurement and construction
practices.
Strategy ES-2.1.3: Energy Efficient Replacements.
Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify City
assets for replacement with more energy efficient technol-
ogy. Utilize available tools to benchmark and showcase city
energy efficiency achievements (i.e. EPA Portfolio Manager,
statewide Green Business Program).
Strategy ES-2.1.4: Incentive Program. Consider incentive
programs for projects that exceed mandatory requirements
and promote incentives from state, county and federal gov-
ernments for improving energy efficiency and expanding
renewable energy installations.
Strategy ES-2.1.5: Urban Forest. Encourage the inclusion
of additional shade trees, vegetated stormwater treatment
and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in devel-
opment projects.
Strategy ES-2.1.6: Alternate Energy Sources. Promote
and increase the use of alternate and renewable energy
resources for the entire community through effective poli-
cies, programs and incentives.
Strategy ES-2.1.7: Energy Cogeneration Systems.
Encourage the use of energy cogeneration systems through
the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger
commercial and industrial users and public facilities.
ES-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy ES-2.1.8: Energy Audits and Financing. Continue
to offer and leverage regional partners’ programs to
conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for
homes, commercial, industrial and city facilities, and recom-
mend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings
opportunities for participants and encourage adoption of
alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits
to include emerging online and application-based energy
analytics and diagnostic tools. Share residential and com-
mercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing
tools through outreach events and civic media assets.
Strategy ES-2.1.9: Energy Efficient Transportation
Modes. Continue to encourage fuel-efficient transportation
modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles,
public transit, car and van-pooling, community and regional
shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes
to schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle
paths through infrastructure investment, development
incentives, and community education.
Strategy ES-2.1.10: Community Choice Energy.
Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate feasibility for
development of a Community Choice Energy.
Sustainable Buildings
The City seeks to improve building efficiency from planning,
construction and operations to help improve indoor air
quality and conserve materials and natural resources.
GOAL ES-3
IMPROVE BUILDING EFFICIENCY
ES-19
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
Policy ES -3.1: Green Building Design
Set standards for the design and construction of energy and
resource conserving/efficient building.
Strategy ES-3.1.1: Green Building Program. Periodically
review and revise the City’s Green Building ordinance to
ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major
private and public projects that ensure reduction in energy
and water use for new development through site selection
and building design.
Strategy ES-3.1.2: Staff Training. Continue to train appro-
priate City staff in the design principles, costs and benefits
of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage
City staff to attend external trainings on these topics and
attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point
Rater, LEED Accredited Professional).
Strategy ES-3.1.3: Green Buildings Informational
Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green Building
informational seminars and workshops for members of the
design and construction industry, land development, real
estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design,
the building maintenance industry and prospective project
applicants.
Strategy ES-3.1.4: Green Building Demonstration.
Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects
that exceed CalGreen and achieve third-party certification
criteria (i.e. LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net
Energy) as a means of creating demonstration spaces for
developer and community enrichment.
ES-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Air Quality
The City seeks to identify ways to improve air quality in
order to reduce emissions and improve overall community
health.
Policy ES-4.1: New Development
Minimize the air quality impacts of new development proj-
ects and air quality impacts that affect new development.
Strategy ES-4.1.1: Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to
review projects for potential generation of toxic air contami-
nants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air
Quality Management District on controls needed if impacts
are uncertain.
Strategy ES-4.1.2: Dust Control. Continue to require water
application to non-polluting dust control measures during
demolition and the duration of the construction period.
Strategy ES-4.1.3: Planning. Ensure that land use and
transportation plans support air quality goals.
Policy ES-4.2: Existing Development
Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development.
Strategy ES-4.2.1: Public Education Program. Establish a
citywide public education program providing information
on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to
provide information about alternative commutes, carpool-
ing and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the
Air” high-emissions days.
GOAL ES-4
MAINTAIN HEALTHY AIR QUALITY
LEVELS
ES-21
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
Strategy ES-4.2.2: Home Occupations. Review and
consider expanding the allowable home occupations in resi-
dentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute
to work.
Strategy ES-4.2.3: Urban Forest. Review and enhance the
City’s tree planting and landscaping program and require-
ments for private development to reduce air pollution
levels.
Strategy ES-4.2.4: Fuel-efficient Vehicles and Use.
Prioritize the purchase, replacement and ongoing use of
fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update
applicable policies and programs to require life cycle cost
analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review
and related funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use
Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to sup-
port fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet
fuel tracking. Pursue available grant funding to offset the
cost of implementing these programs.
Strategy ES-4.2.5: Point Sources of Emissions. Continue
to seek the cooperation of the BAAQMD to monitor
emissions from identified point sources that impact the
community. In addition, for sources not within the regula-
tory jurisdiction of the City, seek cooperation from the
applicable regulatory authority to encourage reduction of
emissions and dust from the point source.
Policy ES-4.3: Use of Open Fires and Fireplaces
Discourage high pollution fireplace use.
Strategy ES-4.3.1: Education. Continue to make BAAQMD
literature on reducing pollution from fireplace use available.
Strategy ES-4.3.2: Fireplaces. Continue to prohibit new
wood-burning fireplaces, except EPA certified wood stoves
as allowed by the Building Code.
ES-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Urban and Rural Ecosystems
Protecting Cupertino’s natural and urban ecosystems sup-
ports the City commitment to protect ecosystems and
improve sustainability.
Policy ES-5.1: Urban Ecosystem
Manage the public and private development to ensure the
protection and enhancement of its urban ecosystem.
Strategy ES-5.1.1: Urban Forest. Ensure that the City’s
tree planting, landscaping and open space policies enhance
the urban ecosystem by encouraging medians, pedestrian-
crossing curb-extensions planting that is native, drought-
tolerant, treats stormwater and enhances urban plant,
aquatic and animal resources.
Strategy ES-5.1.2: Built Environment. Ensure that sustain-
able landscaping design is incorporated in the develop-
ment of City facilities, parks and private projects with the
inclusion of measures such as tree protection, stormwater
treatment and planting of native, drought tolerant landscap-
ing that is beneficial to the environment.
Policy ES-5.2: Development near Sensitive Areas
Encourage the clustering of new development away from
sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat
and corridors, public open space preserves and ridgelines.
New developments in these areas must have a harmonious
landscaping plan approved prior to development.
GOAL ES-5
PROTECT THE CITY’S URBAN AND
RURAL ECOSYSTEMS
ES-23
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
Strategy ES-5.2.1: Riparian Corridor Protection. Require
the protection of riparian corridors through the develop-
ment approval process.
Policy ES-5.3: Landscaping in and near Natural
Vegetation
Preserve and enhance existing natural vegetation, land-
scape features and open space when new development
is proposed within existing natural areas. When develop-
ment is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the
landscaping to be consistent with the palate of vegetation
found in the natural vegetation.
Strategy ES-5.3.1: Native Plants. Continue to emphasize
the planting of native, drought tolerant, pest resistant,
non-invasive, climate appropriate plants and ground covers,
particularly for erosion control and to prevent disturbance
of the natural terrain
Strategy ES-5.3.2: Hillsides. Minimize lawn area in the
hillsides.
Policy ES-5.4: Hillside Wildlife Migration
Confine fencing on hillside property to the area around
a building, rather than around an entire site, to allow for
migration of wild animals.
Policy ES-5.5: Recreation and Natural Vegetation
Limit recreation in natural areas to activities compatible with
preserving natural vegetation, such as hiking, horseback
riding, mountain biking and camping.
ES-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy ES-5.6: Recreation and Wildlife
Provide open space linkages within and between properties
for both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically
for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or
designated as species of special concern.
Strategy ES-5.6.1: Creek and Water Course
Identification. Require identification of creeks and water
courses on site plans and require that they be protected
from adjacent development.
Strategy ES-5.6.2: Trail Easements. Consider requiring
easements for trail linkages if analysis determines that they
are needed.
Mineral Resources
The City seeks to minimize the impacts of mineral resource
operations on the community.
Policy ES-6.1: Mineral Resource Areas
Cooperatively work with Santa Clara County to ensure
that plans for restoration and mining operations at Lehigh
Hanson and Stevens Creek quarries consider environmental
impacts and mitigations.
Strategy ES-6.1.1: Public Participation. Encourage the
Santa Clara County to engage with the affected neighbor-
hoods when considering changes to restoration plans and
mineral extraction activity.
Strategy ES-6.1.2: Recreation in Depleted Mining Areas.
Consider designating abandoned quarries for passive recre-
ation to enhance plant and wildlife habitat and rehabilitate
the land.
GOAL ES-6
MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF AVAILABLE
MINERAL RESOURCES
ES-25
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
Water
The City seeks to ensure that current and future water
supplies are adequate by reducing water demand and
protecting sources of water.
Policy ES-7.1: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage
Systems
In public and private development, use low impact
development (LID) principles to mimic natural hydrology,
minimize grading and protect or restore natural drainage
systems.
Strategy ES-7.1.1: Public and Private Development Plans.
Continue to require topographical information; identifica-
tion of creeks, streams and drainage areas; and grading
plans with development proposals.
Policy ES-7.2: Reduction of Impervious Surfaces
Minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts resulting
from development and use low impact development (LID)
designs to treat stormwater or recharge groundwater
Strategy ES-7.2.1: Lot Coverage. Consider updating lot
coverage requirements to include paved surfaces such as
driveways and on-grade impervious patios to incentivize the
construction of pervious surfaces.
Strategy ES-7.2.2: Pervious Walkways and Driveways.
Encourage the use of pervious materials for walk-
ways and driveways. If used on public or quasi-public
GOAL ES-7
ENSURE PROTECTION AND EFFICIENT
USE OF WATER RESOURCES
ES-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
property, mobility and access for the disabled should take
precedence.
Strategy ES-7.2.3: Maximize Infiltration. Minimize imper-
vious surface areas, and maximize on-site filtration and the
use of on-site retention facilities.
Policy ES-7.3: Pollution and Flow Impacts
Ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts are
reduced through development review and volunteer efforts.
Strategy ES-7.3.1: Development Review. Require LID
designs such as vegetated stormwater treatment systems
and green infrastructure to mitigate pollutant loads and
flows.
Strategy ES-7.3.2: Creek Clean Up. Encourage volunteer
organizations to help clean creek beds to reduce pollution
and help return waterways to their natural state.
Policy ES-7.4: Watershed Based Planning
Review long-term plans and development projects to
ensure good stewardship of watersheds.
Strategy ES-7.4.1: Storm Drainage Master Plan. Develop
and maintain a Storm Drainage Master Plan which identifies
facilities needed to prevent “10-year” event street flood-
ing and “100-year” event structure flooding and integrate
green infrastructure to meet water quality protection needs
in a cost effective manner.
Strategy ES-7.4.2: Watershed Management Plans.
Work with other agencies to develop broader Watershed
Management Plans to model the City’s hydrology.
Strategy ES-7.4.3: Development. Review development
plans to ensure that projects are examined in the context of
impacts on the entire watershed.
ES-27
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
Policy ES-7.5: Groundwater Recharge Sites
Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District efforts to find
and develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino
and provide public recreation where possible.
Policy ES-7.6: Other Water Sources
Encourage the research of other water sources, including
water reclamation.
Policy ES-7.7: Industrial Water Recycling
Encourage industrial projects, in cooperation with the
Cupertino Sanitary District, to have long-term conservation
measures, including recycling equipment for manufacturing
and water supplies in the plant.
Policy ES-7.8: Natural Water Courses
Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, water-
courses and associated vegetation in their natural state to
protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and assist
in groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or
dedication of such areas.
Strategy ES-7.8.1: Inter-Agency Coordination. Work with
the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other relevant
regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide
adequate flood control by use of flow increase mitigation
measures.
Policy ES-7.9: Inter-Agency Coordination for Water
Conservation
Continue to coordinate citywide water conservation and
regional water supply problem solving efforts with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), San Jose Water
Company and California Water Company.
ES-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy ES-7.9.1: Water Conservation Measures.
Implement the mandatory water conservation measures and
encourage the implementation of voluntary water conserva-
tion measures from the City’s water retailers and SCVWD, in
times of drought.
Policy ES-7.10: Public Education Regarding
Resource Conservation
Provide public information regarding resource conservation.
Strategy ES-7.10.1: Outreach. Continue to send edu-
cational information and notices to households and
businesses with water prohibitions, water allocations and
conservation tips. Continue to offer featured articles in the
Cupertino Scene and Cupertino Courier. Consider providing
Public Service Announcements on the City’s Channel and
Cupertino Radio.
Strategy ES-7.10.2: Demonstration Gardens. Consider
including water-wise demonstration gardens in some parks
where feasible as they are re-landscaped or improved using
drought tolerant native and non-invasive, and non-native
plants.
Policy ES-7.11: Water Conservation and Demand
Reduction Measures
Promote efficient use of water throughout the City in order
to meet State and regional water use reduction targets.
Strategy ES-7.11.1: Urban Water Management Plan.
Collaborate with water retailers serving the City in the
preparation of their Urban Water Management Plan, includ-
ing water conservation strategies and programs.
Strategy ES-7.11.2: Water Conservation Standards.
Comply with State water conservation standards by either
adopting the State standards or alternate standards that are
equally efficient.
ES-29
CHAPTER 6
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
Strategy ES-7.11.3: Recycled Water System. Continue to
work with water retailers to promote and expand the avail-
ability of recycled water in the City for public and private
use.
Strategy ES-7.11.4: Recycled Water in Projects.
Encourage and promote the use of recycled water in public
and private buildings, open space and streetscape planting.
Strategy ES-7.11.5: On-site Recycled Water. Encourage
on-site water recycling including rainwater harvesting and
gray water use.
Strategy ES-7.11.6: Water Conservation Programs.
Benchmark and continue to track the City’s public and pri-
vate municipal water use to ensure ongoing accountability
and as a means of informing prioritization of future agency
water conservation projects.
Strategy ES-7.11.7: Green Business Certification and
Water Conservation. Continue to support the City’s Green
Business Certification goals of long-term water conservation
within City facilities, vegetated stormwater infiltration sys-
tems, parks and medians, including installation of low-flow
toilets and showers, parks, installation of automatic shut-off
valves in lavatories and sinks and water efficient outdoor
irrigation.
INF-11
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
GOALS AND POLICIES
Citywide Infrastructure
The City seeks to coordinate its municipal services with
those of other service providers in order to build and main-
tain infrastructure that fully serves the current and future
needs of the Cupertino community.
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.
Strategy INF-1.1.1: Capital Improvement Program. Ensure
that CIP projects reflect the goals and policies identified in
Community Vision 2040.
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.
Strategy INF-1.1.3: Private Development. Require
new development to pay its fair share of, or to extend
or construct, improvements to the City’s infrastructure to
accommodate growth without impacting service levels.
GOAL INF-1
ENSURE THAT THE CITY’S
INFRASTRUCTURE IS ENHANCED AND
MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE
GROWTH IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE
MANNER
INF-12
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy INF-1.1.4: Coordination. Require coordination of
construction activity between various providers, particularly in
City facilities and rights-of-way, to ensure that the community
is not unnecessarily inconvenienced. Require that providers
maintain adequate space for all utilities when planning and
constructing their infrastructure.
Policy INF-1.2: Maintenance
Ensure that existing facilities are maintained to meet the
community’s needs.
Policy INF-1.3: Coordination
Coordinate with utility and service providers to ensure that
their planning and operations meet the City’s service stan-
dards and future growth.
Policy INF-1.4: Funding
Explore funding strategies for upgrades to existing infra-
structure and ongoing operations and maintenance.
Strategy INF-1.4.1: Development. Require developers
to expand or upgrade existing infrastructure to increase
capacity, or pay their fair share, as appropriate.
Strategy INF-1.4.2: Economic Development. Prioritize
funding of infrastructure to stimulate economic
development and job creation in order to increase
opportunities for municipal revenue.
INF-13
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
Rights-of-way
The City will ensure that public, City-owned rights-of-way
are protected in order to support future infrastructure needs
and enhanced with sustainable features when possible, and
that new infrastructure is placed underground as feasible.
Policy INF-2.1: Maintenance
Maintain the City’s right-of-way and traffic operations
systems.
Policy INF-2.2: Multimodal Systems
Ensure that City rights-of-way are planned for a variety of
transportation alternatives including pedestrian, bicycle,
automobile, as well as new technologies such as driverless
cars, etc.
Policy INF-2.3: Green Streets
Explore the development of a “green streets” program to
minimize stormwater runoff in City rights-of-way.
Policy INF-2.4: Undergrounding Utilities
Explore undergrounding of utilities through providers,
public projects, private development and agency funding
programs and grants.
GOAL INF-2
ENSURE THAT CITY RIGHTS-OF-
WAY ARE PROTECTED FROM
INCOMPATIBLE USES AND
ENHANCED WITH SUSTAINABLE
FEATURES WHEN POSSIBLE
INF-14
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy INF-2.4.1: Public and Provider generated
projects. Require undergrounding of all new infrastructure
projects constructed by public agencies and providers.
Work with providers to underground existing overhead
lines.
Strategy INF-2.4.2: Development. Require undergrounding
of all utility lines in new developments and highly
encourage undergrounding in remodels or redevelopment
of major projects.
Policy INF-2.5: Recycled Water Infrastructure
Plan for citywide access to recycled water and encourage its
use.
Strategy INF-2.5.1: Availability. Expand the availability of a
recycled water system through public infrastructure projects
and development review.
Strategy INF-2.5.2: Use. Encourage private and public
projects to incorporate the use of recycled water for
landscaping and other uses.
Strategy INF-2.5.3: City Facilities. Design and retrofit City
buildings, facilities and landscaping to use recycled water,
to the extent feasible.
INF-15
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
Water
The City will seek to identify ways to improve water avail-
ability, access and quality in order to maintain the long-term
health of the Cupertino water system.
Policy INF-3.1: Coordination with Providers
Coordinate with water providers and agencies in their
planning and infrastructure process to ensure that the City
continues to have adequate supply for current needs and
future growth.
Strategy INF-3.1.1: Maintenance. Coordinate with
providers to ensure that water and recycled water delivery
systems are maintained in good condition.
Policy INF-3.2: Regional Coordination
Coordinate with State and regional agencies to ensure that
policies and programs related to water provision and con-
servation meet City goals.
Note: additional water conservation policies are discussed
in detail in the Sustainability Element.
GOAL INF-3
CREATE A COORDINATED STRATEGY
TO ENSURE A SUSTAINED SUPPLY
OF POTABLE WATER THROUGH
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION
INF-16
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Stormwater
The City will seek to implement best practices in stormwa-
ter management in order to reduce demand on the drain-
age system, and reduce sediment and pollutions impacts
on the Bay.
Policy INF-4.1: Planning and Management
Create plans and operational policies to develop and main-
tain an effective and efficient stormwater system.
Strategy INF-4.1.1: Management. Reduce the demand on
storm drain capacity through implementation of programs
that meet and even exceed on-site drainage requirements.
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.
Strategy INF-4.1.3: Maintenance. Ensure that City’s storm
drain infrastructure is appropriately maintained to reduce
flood hazards through implementation of best practices.
GOAL INF-4
IMPLEMENT BEST PRACTICES IN
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
TO REDUCE DEMAND ON THE
STORMWATER NETWORK, REDUCE
SOIL EROSION, AND REDUCE
POLLUTION INTO RESERVOIRS AND
THE BAY
INF-17
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
Policy INF-4.2: Funding
Develop permanent sources of funding storm water infra-
structure construction and maintenance.
Strategy INF-4.2.2: Ongoing Operations. Review other
funding strategies to pay for the ongoing operations and
maintenance of the storm drain system per State and
regional requirements.
Note: additional policies that meet State and regional run-
off reduction are described in the Sustainability Element.
Waste Water
The City will ensure that there is adequate and well-
maintained waste water capacity through infrastructure
enhancements and policies that reduce impact on sanitary
sewer system, and that pollution in reservoirs and the Bay is
minimized.
Policy INF-5.1: Infrastructure
Ensure that the infrastructure plans for Cupertino’s waste
water system providers continue to meet the City’s current
and future needs.
Strategy INF-5.1.1: Coordination. Coordinate with the
Cupertino Sanitary District on their Master Plan and the
Sunnyvale Treatment Plant to develop a comprehensive
capital improvement program to ensure adequate capacity
for future development anticipated with General Plan
buildout.
GOAL INF-5
ENSURE THAT THE CITY’S
WASTEWATER SYSTEM CONTINUES
TO MEET CURRENT AND FUTURE
NEEDS
INF-18
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy INF-5.1.2: Development. Require developers to
pay their fair share of costs for, or in some cases construct,
infrastructure upgrades to ensure that service levels are
met.
Policy INF-5.2: Demand
Look for ways to reduce demand on the City’s wastewater
system through implementation of water conservation
measures.
Telecommunications
The City will promote expansion of a citywide telecom-
munications system that provides excellent services to
businesses and residents, and encourages innovative tech-
nologies for the future.
Policy INF-6.1: Telecommunications Master Plan
Maintain and update a Telecommunications Master Plan
with regulations and guidelines for wireless and emerging
technologies.
Policy INF-6.2: Coordination
Coordinate with providers to improve access and delivery
of services to businesses and homes.
GOAL INF-6
ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES AND
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS THAT
PROVIDE EXCELLENT SERVICES TO
BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS
INF-19
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
Strategy INF-6.2.1: Facility Upgrades. When possible,
require service providers to upgrade existing facilities as
part of permit or lease renewals. Encourage use of newer
technologies that allow the facility components to be
reduced in size or improve screening or camouflaging.
Strategy INF-6.2.2: Improved Access. Work with providers
to expand service to areas that are not served by
telecommunications technologies.
Strategy INF-6.2.3: City Facilities. Encourage leasing
of City sites to expand access to telecommunications
services. Develop standards for the incorporation of
telecommunications systems and public use.
Strategy INF-6.2.4: Agency and Private Facilities.
Encourage the installation of communications infrastructure
in facilities owned by other public agencies and private
development.
Strategy INF-6.2.5: Communications Infrastructure.
Support the extension and access to telecommunications
infrastructure such as fiber optic cables.
Policy INF-6.3: Emerging Technologies
Encourage new and innovative technologies and partner
with providers to provide the community with access to
these services.
Strategy INF-6.3.1: Strategic Technology Plan. Create and
update a Strategic Technology Plan for the City to improve
service efficiency.
INF-20
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Solid Waste
The City seeks to reduce solid waste and demands on
landfills, reduce the release of toxins in the air (including
greenhouse gas emissions) and improve community health.
Policy INF-7.1: Providers
Coordinate with solid waste system providers to utilize the
latest technology and best practices to encourage waste
reduction and meet, and even, exceed State targets.
Policy INF-7.2: Facilities
Ensure that public and private developments build new and
on-site facilities and/or retrofit existing on-site facilities to
meet the City’s waste diversion requirements.
Policy INF-7.3: Operations
Encourage public agencies and private property owners to
design their operations to meet, and even, exceed regula-
tory waste diversion requirements.
Strategy INF-7.3.1: City Facilities and Events. Design new
City facilities and retrofit existing facilities and event venues
with recycling and trash collection bins to facilitate easy
disposal of recyclable and compostable waste by staff and
the public.
GOAL INF-7
ENSURE THAT THE CITY MEETS AND
EXCEEDS REGULATORY WASTE
DIVERSION GOALS BY WORKING
WITH PROVIDERS, BUSINESSES AND
RESIDENTS
INF-21
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
0 1000
0 500
2000 3000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
Legend
Unincorporated Areas within
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Sunnyvale Sanitary District
Cupertino Sanitary District
NFOOTHILL BLVDSTELLING RDDe ANZA BLVDHOMESTEAD ROAD
WOLFE RDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD
BLANEY AVEMILLER AVEBOLLINGER
R
D
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVEBUBB ROADPROSPECT ROAD
85
280
TANTAUAVEStevens Creek
Reservoir
Santa Clara
SunnyvaleLos Altos
San Jose
Saratoga
Figure INF-1
Waste Water Service
INF-22
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy INF-7.3.2: Construction Waste. Encourage
recycling and reuse of building materials during demolition
and construction of City, agency and private projects.
Strategy INF-7.3.3: Recycled Materials. Encourage the use
of recycled materials and sustainably harvested materials in
City, agency and private projects.
Policy INF-7.4: Product Stewardship
Per the City’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy,
support statewide and regional EPR initiatives and legisla-
tion to reduce waste and toxins in products, processes and
packaging.
Policy INF-8.1: Reducing Waste
Meet or exceed Federal, State and regional requirements
for solid waste diversion through implementation of
programs.
Strategy INF-8.1.1: Outreach. Conduct and enhance
programs that promote waste reduction in schools,
businesses and homes through partnerships with schools,
the Chamber of Commerce and the City’s neighborhood
programs.
Strategy INF-8.1.2: Hazardous Waste. Work with providers
and businesses to provide convenient hazardous and
e-waste facilities for the community.
GOAL INF-8
DEVELOP AND ENHANCE PROGRAMS
THAT REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE
WASTE
INF-23
CHAPTER 8
Infrastructure Element
Strategy INF-8.1.3: Preferential Purchasing. Maintain and
update a City preferential purchasing policy to products
that reduce packaging waste, greenhouse gas emissions,
toxic contaminants and are reusable.
Strategy INF-8.1.4: Reuse. Encourage reuse of materials
and reusable products. Develop a program for reuse
of materials and reusable products in City facilities and
outreach programs for community-wide participation
by promoting community-wide garage sales and online
venues.
Strategy INF-8.1.5: Collaboration. Collaborate with
agencies and large businesses or projects to enhance
opportunities for community-wide recycling, reuse and
reduction programs.
RPC-23
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals and policies in this section provide guidance on
how the City can continue to serve the needs of the com-
munity through the growth and change in the horizon of
Community Vision 2040.
Parks and Open Space
Parks and open space policies outline acquisition, develop-
ment, distribution, access and maintenance of parkland in
Cupertino in order to ensure that all residents enjoy easy
access to these areas.
Policy RPC-1.1: Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Prepare a citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan that
outlines policies and strategies to plan for the communities
open space and recreational needs.
Strategy RPC-1.1.1: Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan.
Prepare a master plan for the park and open space corridor
along Stevens Creek including McClellan Ranch, McClellan
Ranch West, Blackberry Farm, the Blackberry Farm golf
course, Stocklmeir and Blesch properties and the Nathan
Hall Tank House area. The plan should address a fiscally
sustainable strategy that allows year-round community
use of the park system, while preserving the areas natural
resources and addressing neighborhood issues including
connectivity and buffers.
Strategy RPC-1.1.2: Civic Center Master Plan. Prepare a
master plan that addresses the needs of the elements in
GOAL RPC-1
CREATE A FULL RANGE OF PARK AND
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES AND
PRESERVE NATURAL RESOURCES
RPC-24
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
the Civic Center area including City Hall, Community Hall,
Library Field, Library programming, function and meeting
space and community gathering space and parking needs.
Policy RPC-1.2: Parkland Standards.
Continue to implement a parkland acquisition and
implementation program that provides a minimum of three
acres per 1,000 residents.
Strategy RPC-1.2.1: Park Size. Require target for parks
based on function and activity supported as part of the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. While the preferred
size for most neighborhood parks is about 3.5 acres for
flexibility of use, smaller size parks may be considered
based on opportunities and circumstances.
Strategy RPC-1.2.2: Amend Parkland Standard. Explore
increasing the parkland standard to five acres per 1,000
residents as part of the citywide Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
Policy RPC-1.3: Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Ensure that CIP projects reflect the goals and policies iden-
tified in Community Vision 2040, establishing a criteria for
ranking CIP proposals for the highest and best selection of
community projects.
RPC-25
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
Policy RPC-2.1: Parkland Acquisition
The City’s parkland acquisition strategy should be based
upon three broad objectives:
• Distributing parks equitably throughout the City;
• Connecting and providing access by providing paths,
improved pedestrian and bike connectivity and signage;
and
• Retaining and restoring creeks and other natural open
space areas.
Strategy RPC-2.1.1: Dedication of Parkland. New
developments, in areas where parkland deficiencies have
been identified, should be required to dedicate parkland
rather than paying in-lieu fees.
Strategy RPC-2.1.2: Public Use of School Sites. Zone all
public school sites for public use to allow for the public
to use sites, when not in use by schools, through shared
arrangements.
Strategy RPC-2.1.3: Acquisition of Surplus Properties.
Explore acquisition of surplus school and agency properties
for parkland. Take advantage of the Naylor Act to purchase
surplus school sites.
GOAL RPC-2
DISTRIBUTE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY
AND PROVIDE SERVICES, AND
SAFE AND EASY ACCESS, TO ALL
RESIDENTS AND WORKERS
RPC-26
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Policy RPC-2.2: Private Open Space and Recreation
Facilities
Encourage the continued existence and profitability of pri-
vate open space and recreation facilities through incentives
and development controls.
Strategy RPC-2.2.1: Existing Facilities. Encourage the
continued existence of private recreational facilities through
land use zoning and incentives.
Strategy RPC-2.2.2: New Facilities. Require major
developments to incorporate private open space and
recreational facilities, and seek their cooperation in making
the spaces publicly-accessible.
• Where feasible, ensure park space is publicly-accessible
(as opposed to private space).
• Encourage active areas to serve community needs.
However, a combination of active and passive areas can
be provided based on the setting.
• Integrate park facilities into the surroundings.
• If public parkland is not dedicated, require park fees
based on a formula that considers the extent to which
the publicly-accessible facilities meet community need.
Policy RPC-2.3: Parkland Distribution
Strive for an equitable distribution of parks and recreational
facilities throughout the city. Park acquisition should be
based on the following priority list. Accessibility to parks
should be a component of the acquisition plan.
• High Priority: Parks in neighborhoods or areas that
have few or no park and recreational areas.
• Medium Priority: Parks in neighborhoods that have
other agency facilities such as school fields and district
facilities, but no City parks.
RPC-27
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
• Low Priority: Neighborhoods and areas that have park
and recreational areas which may be slightly less than
the adopted City’s parkland standard.
• Private Development: Consider pocket parks in new
and renovated projects to provide opportunities for
publicly-accessible park areas.
Policy RPC-2.4: Connectivity and Access
Ensure that each home is within a half-mile walk of a
neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood
facilities; ensure that walking and biking routes are reason-
ably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy
traffic; provide pedestrian links between parks, wherever
possible; and provide adequate directional and site signage
to identify public parks.
Strategy RPC-2.4.1: Pedestrian and Bike Planning.
Implement recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plans to link employment and special areas, and
neighborhood to services including parks, schools and
neighborhood shopping.
Strategy RPC-2.4.2: Signage. Adopt and maintain a master
signage plan for all public parks to ensure adequate and
consistent signage is provided to identify public recreational
areas.
Policy RPC-2.5: Range of Park Amenities
Provide parks and recreational facilities for a variety of rec-
reational activities.
Strategy RPC-2.5.1: Special Needs. Extend recreational
opportunities for special needs groups (seniors, disabled,
visually-challenged, etc.) by making improvements to
existing facilities and trails.
RPC-28
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy RPC-2.5.2: Recreational Facilities. Explore the
possibility of providing additional access to existing facilities
such as gymnasiums, swimming pools and tennis courts.
Policy RPC-3.1: Preservation of Natural Areas
Design parks to utilize natural features and the topography
of the site in order to protect natural features and keep
maintenance costs low.
Strategy RPC-3.1.1: Native Planting. Maximize the use of
native plants and drought-tolerant planting.
Strategy RPC-3.1.2: Natural Habitat. Where possible,
restore and provide access to creeks and riparian habitat.
Strategy RPC-3.1.3: Nature Play Areas. Where
appropriate, consider establishing Nature Play Areas in lieu
of the more conventional play equipment.
Policy RPC-4.1: Recreational Intensity
Design parks appropriately to address the facility and rec-
reational programming required by each special area and
neighborhood based on current and future plans for the
areas.
GOAL RPC-3
PRESERVE AND ENHANCE ACCESS
TO PARKS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT
NATURAL RESOURCES
GOAL RPC-4
INTEGRATE PARKS AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS
AND AREAS
RPC-29
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
Policy RPC-4.2: Park Safety
Design parks to enhance public safety by providing visibility
to the street and access for public safety responders.
Trails
Trails policies encourage the provision of a system of linear
connections along creeks, utility rights-of-way and other
corridors in order to provide recreational opportunities,
improve pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the city,
improve safety, and preserve natural resources.
Policy RPC-5.1: Open Space and Trail Linkages
Dedicate or acquire open space land along creeks and
utility through regional cooperation, grants and private
development review.
Strategy RPC-5.1.1: Pedestrian and Bike Planning.
Implement recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan that link trails and open space to neighborhoods and
special areas.
Strategy RPC-5.1.2: Trail Projects. Implement trail projects
described in this Element; evaluate any safety, security
and privacy impacts and mitigations associated with trail
development; and work with affected neighbors in locating
trails to ensure that their concerns are appropriately
addressed.
GOAL RPC-5
CREATE AN INTERCONNECTED
SYSTEM OF MULTI-USE TRAILS AND
PROVIDE SAFE PEDESTRIAN AND
BICYCLE ACCESS THROUGH THE
CITY AND CONNECTIONS TO LOCAL
NODES AND DESTINATIONS
RPC-30
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Strategy RPC-5.1.3: Dedicated Trail Easements. Require
dedication or easements for trails, as well as their
implementation, as part of the development review process,
where appropriate.
Strategy RPC-5.1.4: Joint Use Agreement. Establish a
Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District that allows cooperation on implementing the trail
program with set standards and implementation measures
for creek trails.
Policy RPC-5.2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths
Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle
pathways to connect employment centers, shopping areas
and neighborhoods to services including parks, schools and
neighborhood centers.
Recreation Programs and Services
Recreation programs and services policies provide guidance
for the implementation of programs that serve the changing
and growing needs of the community in order to ensure an
exceptional quality of life.
Policy RPC-6.1: Diverse Programs
Ensure that the City continues to offer a wide range of pro-
grams to serve diverse populations of all ages and abilities.
GOAL RPC-6
CREATE AND MAINTAIN A BROAD
RANGE OF RECREATION PROGRAMS
AND SERVICES THAT MEET THE
NEEDS OF A DIVERSE POPULATION
RPC-31
CHAPTER 9
Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element
Policy RPC-6.2: Partnerships
Enhance the city’s recreational programs through partner-
ships with other agencies and non-profit organizations.
Policy RPC-6.3: Art and Culture
Utilize parks as locations of art and culture and to educate
the community about the city’s history, and explore the
potential to use art in facilities and utilities when located in
parks.
Policy RPC-7.1: Sustainable Design
Ensure that City facilities are sustainably designed to mini-
mize impacts on the environment.
Policy RPC-7.2: Flexibility
Design facilities to be flexible to address changing com-
munity needs.
Policy RPC-7.3: Maintenance
Design facilities to reduce maintenance, and ensure that
facilities are maintained and upgraded adequately.
GOAL RPC-7
PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY,
FLEXIBLE AND WELL-MAINTAINED
COMMUNITY FACILITIES THAT MEET
THE CHANGING NEEDS OF THE
COMMUNITY AND ARE A SOURCE OF
COMMUNITY IDENTITY
RPC-32
COMMUNITY VISION 2040
City of Cupertino
Community Services
Community services policies seek to enhance the quality of
community services through partnerships and information
sharing with providers.
Policy RPC-8.1: School Districts
Partner with school districts to allow community use of their
sports fields and facilities.
Strategy RPC-8.1.1: Shared Facilities. Maintain and
enhance arrangements with schools for the use of sports
fields, theaters, meeting spaces and other facilities through
maintenance agreements and other partnerships.
Strategy RPC-8.1.2: School Expansion. Encourage schools
to meet their expansion needs without reducing the size of
their sports fields.
Strategy RPC-8.1.3: School Facility Needs. Collaborate
with schools on their facility needs through sharing of
development information and partnerships through major
development projects.
GOAL RPC-8
COOPERATE WITH SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO SHARE FACILITIES AND
MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS
RESOLUTION NO. 15-087
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY VISION 2040
(GENERAL PLAN)
PASS ED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 20th day of October, 2015
EXHIBIT GPA-1
Note that some re-numbering may occur during final formatting of the document.
CHAPTER 3 Land Use and Community Design
*TO BE NUMBERED:
Policy LU-1.X: lobs/Housing Balance. Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.
Strategy LU-3.3.X: Multiple-Story Buildings and Residential Districts. Allow construction of
multiple-story buildings if it is found that nearby residential districts will not suffer from privacy
intrusion or be overwhelmed by the scale of a building or group of buildings.
Policy LU 1.3: Community Benefits Program. At the discretion of the City Council, additional
heights over the base height standard in gatev,rays and nodes may be approved up to the
6
maximum heights as shovm ir. the General Plan Community form Diagram (figure LU 1 of the
General Plan) ir. conformance with the Community Benefits Program.
Strategy LU 1.3.1: Amendment. Update the General Plan, Zonir.g Code and applicable
Specific and Conceptual Plar.s to codify the provisions of the Community Benefit Program.
Strategy LU 1.3.2: Retail Component. The retail component in the Community Benefit
Program shall be the predominate use along the ground floor street frontage (for public or
private streets), and shall be of sufficient depth and height to create a viable retail spaces(s).
Strategy LU 1.3.3: Development Agreement. Offers of Community Benefit must be above
and beyond project design elements and on site or off site contributions required as part of
project environmental mitigations or federal, State or local requirements as part of the
standard entitlement process. The details ar.d conditions of the Community Benefit will be
achieved through the Community Benefits Program and '"'ill be formalized through a
Development Agreement.
GOAL LU-3: Ensure that project site planning and building design enhance the public realm arul
integrate 'Nith adjacent neighborhoods through a high sense of identity and connectivity.
Policy LU-3.2: Building Heights and Setback Ratios. Maximum heights and setback ratios are
specified in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1). As indicated in the figure, taller
heights are focused on major corridors, gateways and nodes. Setback ratios are established to
ensure that the desired relationship of buildings to the street is achieved. Where additional
heights above the base height are allowed, the Community Benefits Program provides direction
on requirements ar.d the process of hor.v additional height may be allocated .
Strategy LU-3.3.7: Street Interface. Ensure development enhances pedestrian activity by
providing active uses within mixed-use areas and appropriate design features within
residential areas along a majority of the building frontage facing the street. Mixed-use
development should include retail, restaurant, outdoor dining, main entries, etc. Residential
development should include main entrances, lobbies, front stoops and porches, open space
and other similar features.
Strategy LU-8.2.1: Fiscal Impacts. Evaluate fiscal impacts of converting office/commercial
uses to residential use, while ensuring that the city meets regional housing requirements .
Policy LU-9.1: Cooperation Collaboration with Business Community. Establish and mair.tair. a
cooperative relationship Collaborate with the business community to support innovation
facilitate growth, development and infrastructure improvements that benefit residents and
businesses . and take advantage of economic development opportunities
Strategy LU-9.1.2: Partnerships. Create partnerships between the City and other public,
arul private and non-profit organizations to provide improvements and services that benefit
the community. promote the development of innovative technology and businesses in the
-7-
commudty and facilitate gro',vth and infrastructure improvements that benefits residents
ar.d businesses.
Policy LU-12.3: Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas. Require rural improvement
standards in hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides . Improvement
standards should balance the need to furnish adequate utility and emergency services against
the need to protect the hillside, vegetation and animals.
Policy LU-12.4: Hillside Views. The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundary of the
valley floor provide a scenic backdrop, adding to the City's scale and variety. While it is not
possible to guarantee an unobstructed view of the hills from every vantage point, an attempt
should be made to allew preserve views of the foothills from public gathering places.
Policy LU-13.4: Neighborhood Centers and Activity Areas. A majority of the commercial
development allocation should be devoted to rehabilitating neighborhood centers and major
activity centers with a focus on creating pedestrian-oriented, walkable and bikeable areas with
inviting community gathering places. Land uses between the activity centers should help focus
and support activity in the centers. Neighborhood centers should be retrofitted and
redeveloped using the "neighborhood commercial centers" concept discussed earlier in this
Element.
Strategy LU-13.7.3: Connectivity. Properties within a block should be inter-connected with
shared access drives. Provide pedestrian paths to enhance public access to and through the
development. New d evelopment, particularly on comer lots, should provide pedestrian and
bicycle improvements along side streets to enhance connections to surrounding
neighborhoods.
Strategy LU-13.7.5: Neighborhood buffers. Consider buffers such as setbacks, landscaping
and/or building transitions to buffer abutting single-family residential areas from visual and
noise impacts.
Policy LU-14.5: Oaks Gateway Node. This is a gateway retail and shopping node. New
residential and office uses, if allowed, should be designed on the "mixed-use village" concept
discussed earlier in this Element.
Strategy LU-15.1.3: Building form. Buildings should be moderately-scaled with high-
quality, p e destrian-oriented scaled, active uses along the street. Buildir.gs in the North
Crossroads node may have taller heights per the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU 1).
Strategy LU-15.1.5: De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard landmark. Secure
permanent landscape easements as a condition of development from properties at the
int ersection of De Anza and Stevens Creek Boulevards for construction of a future
landmark. The landmark m ay include open space, landscaping and other d esig n elements a t
the comers. Land at the southeast comer will remain a publicly accessible park.
-8 -
Strategy LU-16.1.3: Building form . Buildings should be moderately-scaled to transition
from existing taller buildings to the scale of the surrounding area. Additional heights may
be approved ir. specific areas by the City Council as part of the Commur.ity Benefits
Program and per heights allo\ved ir, the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU 1). Taller
buildings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the surrounding area.
Policy LU-17.1: Land Use. Allow a mix of uses including commercial, retail, commercial office
and limited residential uses. The ground floor of buildings along the street should be activated
with pedestrian-oriented, active uses including retail, restaurants, entries, etc. Neighborhood
centers shall be remodeled or redeveloped using the "neighborhood commercial center.Q"
format concept described earlier in this Element. See Figure LU-1 for residential densities and
criteria.
Policy LU-18.1: Land Use. Allow regional commercial with retail, commercial, office and
hotels as the primary uses, with residential mixed-use as a supporting use. Retail, restaurant
and other actives uses are highly encouraged on the ground floor facing the street. In case of
office complexes, active uses such as entries, lobbies or plazas should be provided on the
ground floor along the street. Neighborhood centers shall be remodeled or redeveloped using
the "neighborhood commercial center.Q" format concept described earlier in this Element. See
Figure LU-1 for residential densities and criteria.
Strategy LU-19.1.9: Building form. Buildings should have high-quality architecture, and an
emphasis on aesthetics, human scale, and create a sense of place. t~dditional heights may be
approved ir. specific areas by the City Council as part of the Community Benefits Program
and per heights allo·Ned in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU 1). Taller buildings
should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the surrounding area.
Policy LU-20.1: Land Use. This area is a major employment node with office, and research and
development uses. Retail and hotel uses are allowed on the west side of Wolfe Road.
Redevelopment of the retail site at the comer of Wolfe and Homestead Roads should be based
on the ~neighborhood commercial centers" concept described earlier in this Element. Retail uses
are not required on the Hamptons site. See Figure LU-1 for residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-20.3: Building Form. Buildings in the retail and hotel area should provide active,
pedestrian-oriented uses along the street. Buildings should transition to fit the scale of the
surrounding area. Additional heights may be approved in specific areas by the City Council as
part of the Commudty Benefits Program and per heights allor,ved ir. the Community Form
Diagram (Figure LU 1). Taller buildings should provide appropriate transitions to fit into the
surrounding area. In addition to the height limits established in the Community Form Diagram,
buildings abutting the campus shall incorporate appropriate setbacks, landscaped buffering,
and building height transitions to minimize privacy and security impacts.
Policy LU-20.4: Community Amenities Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections. Pedestrian-
oriented retail and hotel d evelopment will support a diverse population of workers and
residents in the area. Trail route s, and alternate trail routes to address s ecurit y and privacy
-9 -
concerns of major employers, shall be developed to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections
to other destinations.
Policy LU-22.1: Conceptual Plan. Create a Maintain and implement conceptual plan that
combines the existing South De Anza and Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Plans~ To create a
cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and guidelines for the South De Anza area.
Policy LU-22.2: Land Use. General commercial and retail uses with limited commercial office,
office and residential uses. Neighborhood centers should be redeveloped in the "neighborhood
commercial center§" format concept discussed earlier in this Element. See Figure LU-1 for
residential densities and criteria.
Policy LU-22.6: Building Design. Located buildings and commercial pads along the street with
parking areas to the side and rear. Provide pedestrian-scaled elements and active uses including
retail, restaurants, and entries along the street. Outdoor plaza and activity areas can be located
along the street with sidewalk and street trees to buffer them from through traffic.
Policy LU-23.1: Conceptual Plan. Create a conceptual plan for the Homestead Road corridor
Special Area with a cohesive set of land use and streetscape regulations and guidelines for the
South De Anza area.
Policy LU-23.4: Building Design. Buildings will be located closer to the street with parking
mostly to the side and rear. In the case of larger sites, large buildings may be placed behind
parking; however a substantial portion of the front of the site should be lined with active uses
such as retail/restaurant pads, and plazas. Buildings should include pedestrian-oriented
elements with entries, retail, lobbies, and active uses along the street. Parking areas along the
street will be screened with street trees. Residential buildings will provide stoops and porches
along the street and side streets. Additional heights may be approved in specific areas by the
City Council as part of the Community Benefits Program ar.d per heights allowed ir. the
Community Form diagram (Figure LU 1). Taller buildings should provide appropriate
transitions to fit into the surrounding area.
Policy LU-26.1: Land Use. Retrofit or redevelop neighborhood centers using the
"neighborhood commercial center§" concept discussed earlier in this Element. Areas that are
not designated as ~neighborhood centers~ are encouraged to provide commercial uses with
active uses such as entries, lobbies, seating areas or retail along the street. See Figure LU-1 for
residential densities and criteria.
Strategy LU-27.1.2: Neighborhood Guidelines. Identify neighborhoods that have a unique
architectural style, historical background or location and develop plans that preserve and
enhance their character. Support and budget for special zoning or design guidelines (e.g .,
the Fairgrove Eichler neighborhood) and single-story overlay zones in neighborhoods,
where there is strong neighborhood support.
-10-
Strategy LU-27.6.1: Provide Active and Passive Provision of Outdoor Areas in Multi
Family Residential Development. Provide outdoor areas, both passive and active, and
generous landscaping to enhance the surroundings for multifamily residents. Allow public
access to the common outdoor areas wherever whenever possible.
Policy LU-27.67: Compatibility of Lots. Ensure that zoning, subdivision and lot-line
adjustment requests related to lot size or lot design consider the need to preserve neighborhood
lot patterns.
Strategy LU-27.67.1: Lot Size. Ensure that subdivision and lot-line adjustment requests
respect the neighborhood lot size patterns. Consider revisions to lot size requirements if the
neighborhood lot pattern is different from the zoning requirements.
Strategy LU-27.67.2: Flag Lots. Allow flag lots only in cases where they are the sole
alternative to integrate subdivisions with the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy LU-27 .. 78: Protection. Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare,
odors and visually intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site
and building design, setbacks and other appropriate measures.
Policy LU-27.89: Amenities and Services. Improve equitable distribution of community
amenities such as parks and access to shopping within walking and bicycling distance of
neighborhoods.
CHAPTER 5 Mobility
*TO BE NUMBERED:
Policy M-2.X: Traffic Calming. Consider the implementation of best practices on streets to reduce
speeds and make them user-friendly for alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Policy M-4.X: Valko Shopping District Transfer Station. Work with VTA and/or other
transportation service organizations to study and develop a transit transfer station that incorporates
a hub for alternative transportation services such as, car sharing, bike sharing and/or other services.
Policy M-1.1: Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation
planning processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino's
General Plan and to minimize adverse impacts on the City's circulation system. Work with
neighboring cities to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.
Policy M-1.2: Transportation Impact Analysis. Participate in the development of new multi-
modal analysis methods and impact thresholds as required by Senate Bill 743 . However, until
such impact thresholds are developed, continue to optimize mobility for all modes of
transportation while striving to maintain the following intersection Levels of Service (LOS) at
a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours:
-11-
• Major intersections -LOS D;
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard -LOS E+;
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road-LOSE+
•De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road-LOSE+.
Policy M-2.2: Adjacent Land Use. Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking
and bicycle lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks to complement adjacent land uses te in keeping
with the aesthetic vision of the Planning Area. Strive to minimize adverse impacts and expand
alternative transportation options for all Planning Areas (Special Areas and Neighborhoods.)
Improvement standards shall also consider the urban, suburban and rural environments found
within the city.
Strategy M-2.2.4: Suburban Road Improvement Standards. Develop suburban road
improvement standards for all streets not designated as rural, semi-rural or in the
Crossroads Area.
Policy M-2.4: Community Impacts. Reduce traffic impacts and support alternative modes of
transportation in neighborhoods and around schools, parks and community facilities rather
than constructing barriers to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a demonstrated safety
or overwhelming through traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives since street
closures move the problem from one street to another.
Policy M-3.8: Bicycle Parking. Require new development and redevelopment to provide public
and private bicycle parking.
Policy M-3.10: Quarry Operations. Continue Prioritize enforcement of truck traffic speeds from
Stevens Creek and the Lehigh Cement Plant on Stevens Canyon Road, and Stevens Creek and
Foothill Boulevards.
Policy M-4.3: Connecting Majer Special Areas . Identify and implement new or enhanced
transit services to connect~ all Special Areas as identified in Figure PA-1 (Chapter 2:
Planning Areas). including De Anza College, North Valko Park, North De i\nza, South Valko
Park, Crossroads, City Center ar.d Civic Center)
Policy M-4.4: Transit Facilities with New Development. Work with VTA and/or major
developments to ensure all new development projects include amenities to support public
transit including bus stop shelters, space for transit vehicles as appropriate and attractive
amenities such as trash receptacles, signage, seating and lighting.
Policy M-7.2: Protected Intersections. Consider adopting a Protected Intersection policy which
would identify intersections where improvements would not be considered which would
degrade levels of service for non-vehicular modes of transportation. Potential locations include
intersections in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and other areas where non-vehicular
transportation is a key consideration, such as, n ear shopping districts, schools, parks and senior
citizen developments.
-12 -
Policy M-8.2: Land Use . Support development and transportation improvements that help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions b y reducing per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT),
reducing impacts on the City's transportation network and maintaining the desired levels of
service for all modes of transportation.
Policy M-8.4: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs. Require large employers,
including colleges and schools , to dev elop and maintain TDM programs to r educe v ehicle trips
generated by their employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results .
Policy M-9.2: Reduced Travel Demand. Synchronization of Traffic Signals. Enhance the
synchronization of traffic signals on major streets to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion.
Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development.
Strategy M-9.3.2: Streetscape Design. When reviewing the widening of an existing street,
consider the aesthetically pleasing enhancements and amenities to improve the safe
movement of pedestrians and bicyclists in keeping with the vision of the Planning Area and
incorporate to the extent feasible appropriate lar.dscaping and pedestrian/bicycle amenities.
Policy M-10.3: Multi-Modal Improvements. Integrate the financing, design and construction of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities with street projects. Build pedestrian and bicycle improvements
at the same time as improvements for vehicular circulation to enable travelers to transition from
one mode of transportation to another, e .g. bicycle to bus.
CHAPTER 6: Environmental Resources and Sustainability
GOAL ES-3: Improve building efficiency and energy conservation
Strategy ES-3.1.2: Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design
principles, costs and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City
staff to attend external trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications
(e.g., Green Point Rater, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited
Professional).
Strategy ES-4.2.2: Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable
home-based businesses occupations in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to
commute to work.
Strategy ES-4.2.3: Urban Forest Tree Planting in Private Development. Review and
enhance the City's tree planting and landscaping program and requirements for private
development to reduce air pollution levels . (Pg. ES-21)
Strategy ES-5.1.1: Urban Forest Landscaping. Ensure that the City's tree planting,
landscaping and open space policies enhance the urban ecosystem b y encouraging medians,
pedestrian-crossing curb-extensions planting that is native, drought-tolerant, treats
-13 -
stormwater and enhances urban plant, aquatic and animal resources in both, private and
public development.
GOAL ES-7: Ensure protection and efficient use of all water resources.
Policy ES-7.1: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. In public and private
development, use !)ow !impact Ddevelopment (LID) principles to manage stormwater by
mimicking natural hydrology, minimizinge grading, and protecting or restoringe natural
drainage systems.
Policy ES-7.3: Pollution and Flow Impacts. Ensure that surface and groundwater quality
impacts are reduced through development review and volunteer voluntary efforts.
-14 -
CHAPTER 8 Infrastructure
*TO BE NUMBERED:
Strategy INF-8.1.X : Construction Waste. Continue to require encourage recycling and encourage
the reuse of building materials during demolition and construction of City, agency and private
projects.
Strategy INF-8.1.X: Recycled Materials. Encourage the use of recycled materials and sustainably
harvested materials in City, agency and private projects.
Policy INF-1.4: Funding. Explore funding various strategies and opportunities to fund fuF
upgrades to existing and future infrastructure needs and ongoing operations and maintenance.
Strategy INF-1.4.1: Development Existing Infrastructure. Require developers to expand or
upgrade existing infrastructure to increase capacity, or pay their fair share, as appropriate.
Strategy INF--1-.-l.Jl.4.2: Private Development Future Infrastructure Needs. For new
infrastructure, require new development to pay its fair share of, or to extend or construct,
improvements to accommodate growth without impacting service levels .
Strategy INF-1.4.3i: Economic Development. Prioritize funding of infrastructure to
stimulate economic development and job creation in order to increase opportunities for
municipal revenue.
Policy INF-7.3: Operations. Encourage public agencies and private property owners to design
their operations to meet, ar.d even, exceed regulatory waste diversion requirements.
Strategy INF-8.1.1: Outreach. Conduct and enhance programs that promote waste
reduction in through partnerships with schools, institutions, businesses and homes through
partnerships 'Nith schools, the Chamber of Commerce and the City's neighborhood
programs.
CHAPTER 9 Recreation Parks and Community Service
***TO BE NUMBERED:
Policy RPC-6.X: Library Service . Encourage the library to continue to improve service levels by
incorporating new technology and expanding the library collections and services.
Policy Strategy RPC-1.1.1: Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. Prepare a master plan for
the park and open space corridor along Stevens Creek including McClellan Ranch,
McClellan Ranch West, Blackberry Farm, the Blackberry Farm golf course, Stocklmeir and
Blesch properties and the Nathan Hall Tank House area. The plan should address a fiscally
sustainable strategy that allows year-round community use of the park system, while
preserving the areas natural resources and addressing neighborhood issues including
connectivity and buffers.
-15 -
Strategy RPC-2.5.3: Community Gardens. Encourage community gardens, which provide a
more livable environment by controlling physical factors such as temperature, noise, and
pollution.
Policy RPC-5.2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths. Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and
bicycle pathways to connect employment centers, shopping areas and neighborhoods to
services including parks, schools, libraries and neighborhood centers.
Policy RPC-6.2: Partnerships. Enhance the city's recreational programs and library service
through partnerships with other agencies and non-profit organizations. If higher level of library
service is desired, cooperation with the County of Santa Clara to expand service and/or facilities
may be required.
APPENDIX A:
Add category: Industrial/Commercial/Residential
This designation allows primarily industrial uses and secondarily commercial uses or a compatible
combination of the two. Industrial use refers to manufacturing, assembly and research and
development. Administrative offices that support manufacturing and wholesaling are included.
Housing may be allowed to offset job growth and better balance citywide jobs to housing ratio.
Residential development is subject to the numerical caps and other policies (described in the Land
Use and Community Design Element).
-16 -
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Date:April 25, 2017
SUBJECT:
Consider an appeal of a Modification of an existing Use Permit (6-U-86 and M-2009-05)
to allow a private school/daycare center to operate where an afterschool care is
currently allowed and a Director’s Minor Modification to allow installation of an
outdoor play structure. (Application No.(s): U-2016-02, DIR-2016-34; Applicant(s):
Diane Hsu (Christian Light and Salt Foundation); Location: 940 S. Stelling Road; APN:
359-25-041) Appellant: Srilakshmi Vemulakonda.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission deny the appeal, and uphold the Administrative
Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the project, in accordance with the draft
resolutions (Attachments 1 and 2).
DISCUSSION:
Application Summary:
Appeal to an amendment to an existing Use Permit (M-2009-05 and 6-U-86) to allow for
private school/daycare center to increase their hours of operation from 12pm to 6:30pm,
to 7:00 am to 6:30 pm with a total of 70 students, and a Director's Minor Modification to
allow for an outdoor play structure.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:Quasi-Public
General Plan Neighborhood:Jollyman
Zoning Designation:BQ (Quasi-Public Building)
Lot Area: 67,114
Acreage: 1.49 acres
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
U-2016-02 & Appeal of a Modification to a Use Permit and April 25, 2017
DIR-2016-34 a Director’s Minor Modification
Building SF: Existing Proposed
Building A:1,985 square feet
No ChangeBuilding B:1,894 square feet
Building C:2,091 square feet
Parking Stalls Required Existing Proposed
Vehicular Parking 11stalls 57 stalls
54 stalls (after
installation of new
driveway)
Project Consistency with:
General Plan: Yes
Zoning: Yes
Environmental Assessment:Categorically Exempt
Analysis:
Background
On July 29, 2016, the applicant, Diane Hsu, representing the property owner, Christian
Light and Salt Foundation, applied for a Modification of an existing Use Permit (6-U-86
and M-2009-05) to consider allowing a private school/daycare center to operate where
an afterschool care is currently allowed and a Director’s Minor Modification to allow
installation of an outdoor play structure (see Attachments 3 and 4). The proposed
project is consistent with Chapter 19.156 and Chapter 19.164 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code as discussed in the Administrative Hearing Staff Report (Attachment 5.)
Prior to the Administrative Hearing, the applicant held two public outreach meetings
on February 10, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The meetings were attended by four
neighbors.
Prior to the public hearing on the project, staff received comments from citizens with
concerns about:
Parking and traffic impacts.
Noise impacts.
Neighborhood safety
Privacy
The project was heard and approved by the Hearing Officer at the February 23, 2017
Administrative Hearing at which Conditions of Approval were added to address the
concerns raised by the neighbors. The conditions included (1) delaying the start time of
the private school/daycare use to 8am, (2) requiring the preparation and establishment
U-2016-02 & Appeal of a Modification to a Use Permit and April 25, 2017
DIR-2016-34 a Director’s Minor Modification
of a Traffic Management Plan and traffic monitor for the parking lot, (3) periodic review
of the noise generated, and (4) to study with the City on the feasibility of a new
driveway approach on Stelling Road.
On March 8, 2017, the appellant, Mr. Srilakshmi Vemulakonda, filed an appeal (see
Attachment 6).
Basis of the Appeal
The appellant's basis of appeal is summarized below in italics and staff responses follow.
1. Parking and Traffic Impacts
a. Traffic was not addressed sufficiently (i.e. traffic study, examination of Jollyman Lane
and South Stelling Road).
The City’s Senior Transportation Engineer determined that, based on the size
and the scope of the project and Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
guidelines, a traffic study was not necessary. The total number of cars, from the
proposed project, even if it is assumed that there would be no siblings attending
the school (therefore reducing the number of trips), is a very small volume for a
standard residential street that serves approximately 20 homes and would not
result in any safety or operational issues.
The project also proposes to reduce the total number of students from 90 to 70,
and will therefore, result in a decrease in the amount of p.m. traffic from the
project. Finally, as a condition of approval, the property owner is required to
work with the City on a new driveway approach along South Stelling Road. The
opening of a new curb cut on Stelling Road at a controlled intersection would
incentivize more users of the site to use the new driveway, thus further reducing
the impact to Jollyman Lane.
b. The change of the start time does not help alleviate traffic concerns. A start time of 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. sharp with no incidental pick up may alleviate concerns.
Pre-schools generally operate between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and
most, if not all, allow incidental late pick up and drop off, for a fee, until 6:30
p.m. as a service to parents who run late or get delayed due to unforeseen
circumstances. The request for the restricted start times may not align with
standard operating practices for childcare services.
U-2016-02 & Appeal of a Modification to a Use Permit and April 25, 2017
DIR-2016-34 a Director’s Minor Modification
The Conditions of Approval, including the start time, are intended to ensure
consistency with the City’s Municipal Code, and are intended to address
concerns identified by the public at the Administrative Hearing, including traffic.
c. Traffic and safety concerns at the intersection of Jollyman Lane and Stelling Road. A
traffic monitor should monitor operations and enforce rules at this intersection during
school hours.
As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to work with the
Department of Public Works to determine the feasibility and implementation of a
new driveway curb-cut on Stelling Road to help alleviate traffic on Jollyman
Lane. The applicant has confirmed that the new driveway approach is feasible
and will be completed prior to occupancy of the private school/daycare use.
Since the new driveway would provide direct access to Stelling Road at a four-
way stop intersection, it would likely be the preferred entrance/exit for the site
and the driveway entrance on Jollyman Lane would function as a secondary
entrance.
d. Concern regarding the feasibility of constructing a new driveway.
The driveway was not part of the original project scope. The driveway was
added as a Condition of Approval in order to address concerns raised during the
Administrative Hearing additionally, see response to (c.) above.
2. Noise Impacts
a. The Noise Study conducted was not accurate.
The Noise Study, prepared by the City’s Acoustical Consultant, used current and
industry-wide recognized best practices to determine noise impacts (Attachment
7.) The analysis concluded that based on the projected noise levels (shown in the
table below) the outdoor play activities would not have a significant impact. The
maximum yard noise levels are below the limits (60dBA at receiving property
line) allowed by the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance.
U-2016-02 & Appeal of a Modification to a Use Permit and April 25, 2017
DIR-2016-34 a Director’s Minor Modification
The church yard is separated from the two residences to the east by an
approximately 20-foot wide driveway that serves the property located at 20896
Jollyman Lane. The residential portions of the home on 20896 Jollyman Lane are
located beyond an existing three-car garage on the property. Living spaces and
usable yards of 20896 Jollyman Lane, the property closest to the play structure,
are located approximately 100 feet away. Usable yards of 20894 Jollyman Lane,
the other property on the east, are located approximately 70 feet away and
separated by two wooden fences and mature landscaping.
b. With the increased hours in the permit and the proposed playground structure, there
would be far more hours of the day where noise would be present. 70 cars and 70 kids will
add noise to the neighborhood.
The noise study concludes that the overall ambient noise levels in the project
area depend primarily on existing traffic noise from cars driving on adjacent
streets (including Stelling Road), and this will continue to be the dominant
source of noise in the area for the foreseeable future. The Noise Study does not
indicate that no noise will be generated from the activities in the playground;
rather, it concludes that noise levels generated would be consistent with the
City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance.
c. Noise monitoring
The conditions of approval of the project require periodic review of the noise
generated by the use to ensure consistency with City’s Community Noise
Control Ordinance. The Noise Control Officer, or his/her designee, would
periodically verify conformance with the City’s Community Noise Control
Ordinance with sound level decibel meters.
3. Neighborhood Safety
a. Concern of the “commercial use” (such as a daycare use) being allowed in the
neighborhood.
The Quasi-Public (BQ) zoning district, within which the church is located in, is
intended to accommodate religious, community service, child care, residential
care, or recreational facilities in the City. The City’s zoning ordinance allows the
proposed use upon City review, with a Conditional Use Permit, to ensure that
adequate mitigation measures are in place.
U-2016-02 & Appeal of a Modification to a Use Permit and April 25, 2017
DIR-2016-34 a Director’s Minor Modification
b. The City should strictly monitor and act proactively on any permit violation and take
immediate action/response that are brought to the attention of the Church, the Sheriff or
the City.
As with all other perceived violations of City regulations, perceived violations of
the approved project must be reported to the City. The Code Enforcement
Division will review the perceived violation(s), and determine necessary steps to
ensure consistency with project condition of approvals.
c. The daycare use will make it difficult to watch out for activities in the area, such as
unknown cars parked in the residential neighborhood.
There is adequate parking on site to accommodate the proposed use, and due to
the age of the students served, state licensing regulations require that the
parents/guardians sign the children in and out of the school. Additionally, due to
the ages of the students and the distance from the classrooms to the street curb, it
is unlikely that parents park on the public street during pickup and drop off due
to safety concerns for their wards.
Finally, a condition of approval of the project requires that the private
school/daycare operator include notices in welcome packages, and install on-site
signage, informing parents/guardians of enrolled students that, in the interests of
being good neighbors, on-street parking should be avoided, including during
pick up and drop off.
However, this would not prevent other members of the public from parking on
Jollyman Lane for up to 72 hours since this is permitted on all public streets
within the City. If desired, the neighborhood may apply for Residential Permit
Parking in the neighborhood to control parking within the neighborhood.
d. The potential violation of traffic regulations due to the additional traffic congestion from
the project, and the potential for accidents because of the additional number of cars,
people, and situations.
As previously discussed, while there will be a negligible increase in traffic in the
morning A.M. hour; there will be a decrease in traffic during the P.M. peak hours
with the proposed project.
All drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, regardless of their destination, are
required to adhere to traffic laws to prevent accidents.
U-2016-02 & Appeal of a Modification to a Use Permit and April 25, 2017
DIR-2016-34 a Director’s Minor Modification
4. Privacy
a. Appellant believes that there will be compromised privacy due to the play structure
location, and view into the two adjacent properties on the east (neighboring resident’s
driveway, front door, and living space).
While the peak of the play structure is approximately 14 feet tall, the highest
platform is only at five feet from the adjoining grade. The structure will be
placed approximately 55 feet from the eastern property line. As previously
mentioned, living spaces and usable yards of 20896 Jollyman Lane, located about
100 feet away, are separated by a wooden fence, mature foliage and/or it’s three-
car garage while usable yards of 20894 Jollyman Lane, located about 70 feet
away, are separated by a 20-foot wide driveway, two wooden fences and mature
foliage.
While the distance of the play structure from the property line and the existence
of the fence and mature landscaping would significantly hinder the ability of
children to intrude into the neighbor’s privacy, the appellant has suggested that
the height of the property line fence be increased, and a ground level playground
be utilized instead.
5. Miscellaneous
a. The Administrative Hearing Summary does not summarize the meeting appropriately,
and does not reflect the challenges caused by the proposed project.
The Appellant was provided with the Administrative Hearing Summary which
is different from meeting minutes, since the minutes were are not available at
that the time of the request.
b. Have appropriate indemnity should the children and/or staff cause damage to any
property.
It is not anticipated that preschoolers or staff from the preschool will cause
damage to property in the neighborhood.
c. Require that any changes to the specific permit be approved by the impacted neighbor’s
before approval (type of school, number of students, play structure, and hours).
All applicants must consult with, and, if required, obtain permits from the City
prior to making any changes to their permit/operations. The City encourages
meaningful community outreach by applicants prior to scheduling any public
U-2016-02 & Appeal of a Modification to a Use Permit and April 25, 2017
DIR-2016-34 a Director’s Minor Modification
meetings or public hearings for a project. In this case, the applicant held two
community meetings to allow neighbors the opportunity to review the proposed
project, ask questions and collect comments. As a result of the concerns raised by
the neighbors, the applicant voluntarily proposed to install a new driveway
opening along S. Stelling Road to help alleviate traffic and safety concerns.
PUBLIC NOTICING & COMMUNITY OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Notice of Public Hearing, Site Signage &
Legal Ad
Agenda
Posted on the site (10 days prior to hearing)
48 notices mailed to property owners
adjacent to the property site (10 days prior
to hearing).
Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least
10 days prior to hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to
hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s
Web site (one week prior to hearing)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1. Existing Facilities.
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
The appeal is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 –
65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act.
Project Received: July 29, 2016; Deemed Incomplete:September 1, 2016;
Project Resubmitted:December 12, 2016;Deemed Incomplete: December 21, 2016
Project Resubmitted:January 5, 2017;Deemed Complete: January 20, 2017
NEXT STEPS AND CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission’s decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14
days of the decision. If appealed, the City Council will hear the final appeal on this
project.
Since the proposed plans and conditions of approval address all concerns to the
proposed project, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and
uphold the Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision to approve the Modification to the
Use Permit and the Director’s Minor Modification.
U-2016-02 & Appeal of a Modification to a Use Permit and April 25, 2017
DIR-2016-34 a Director’s Minor Modification
Prepared by: Erick Serrano, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
Approved by:Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold approval of U-2016-02
2 – Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold approval of DIR-2016-34
3 – Applicant Project Description
4 – Plan Set
5 – Administrative Hearing Staff Report dated February 23, 2017
6 – Appellant’s Letter
7 – Noise Study
8 – Administrative Hearing Summary
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE FEBRUARY 23, 2017 ADMINSTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER’S
DECISION TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
A DAYCARE USE TO OPERATE AT 940 S. STELLING ROAD
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:U-2016-02
Applicant:Diane Hsu (Christian Light and Salt Foundation)
Appellant: Srilakshmi Vemulakonda
Location:940 South Stelling Road (APN 359-25-041)
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal of the
Administrative Hearing Officer’s February 23, 2017 decision to approve the modification of an
existing Use Permit to allow a daycare center to operate in a Quasi-Public Building Zone; and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the necessary public hearing notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public
hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds:
1. The proposed development and/or use, 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;
A daycare center 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. Noise impacts from the proposed project would be mitigated by new or
existing wooden fences located on the site or at the shared property lines. The proposed
Draft Resolution U-2016-02 April 25, 2017
Page 2
use provides a convenience to the community, including potentially low-cost child care
services.
2. The proposed development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord
with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, underlying zoning regulations, and the
purpose of this title and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed project is consistent with and will be conducted in a manner in accordance
with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with previous approvals. The
proposed use will be reviewed further by the California State Department of Community
Care Licensing, Building Department and Fire Department to ensure compliance with
rules and regulations for pre-schools. Furthermore, the use is categorically exempt under
CEQA in that the proposed project involves negligible changes to an existing use.
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 Section III and IV of this
Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof, the Application No. U-2016-02 is hereby approved; and
that the sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are
based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application U-2016-02 as set forth
in the Minutes of the Administrative Hearing Meeting of February 23, 2017, and the Planning
Commission Meeting of April 25, 2017, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled “Playground Furniture Installation at Good
Shepherd Christian Church, 940 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino CA” consisting of six (6)
sheets labeled as A0.1, A1.1, A1.2, A2.1, L-1 drawn by RCUSA Corporation, two (2)
sheets from Playcraft Systems, and project description dated received January 5, 2017,
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. 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.
Draft Resolution U-2016-02 April 25, 2017
Page 3
4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. DIR-2016-34 shall be applicable to this
approval.
5. PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
All previous conditions of approval, in accordance with 6-U-86, Resolution No.2777 as
approved by the Planning Commission on February 3, 1986, and the modification of the
use permit M-2009-05, Resolution No. 6559 as approved by the Planning Commission on
June 23, 2009, shall remain in effect except as may be amended by conditions contained
in this resolution.
6. ALLOWED USES
A private school/daycare use is allowed to operate on the site between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 6:30 p.m. for a maximum of 70 students. Staff may arrive as early as 7:00 a.m.
The private school/daycare operator shall designate a point of contact and monitor for
all complaints, circulation, parking and other onsite activities.
7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
The private school/daycare operator will in their welcome packages, and with on-site
signage, inform parents/guardians of enrolled students that, in the interests of being
good neighbors, on-street parking should be avoided, including during pick up and
drop off. A traffic monitor shall also be identified and assigned to manage the plan and
the onsite traffic, parking, and circulation conditions.
8. REVIEW OF NOISE GENERATION
The City shall conduct a periodic review of the noise generated by the use to ensure
consistency with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 10.48: Community Noise Control.
9. NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH
The property owner shall work with the Department of Public Works to study and
implement a new driveway approach, where feasible, along South Stelling Road. If
feasible, the driveway approach is to be completed prior to occupancy of the private
school/daycare use.
10. FUTURE REVIEW OF USE PERMIT
In the event of any documented substantial problems, the City reserves the right to
review this use permit at any time for additional mitigation measures or revocation of
the use permit.
Draft Resolution U-2016-02 April 25, 2017
Page 4
11. SIGNAGE
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. The applicant shall be
required to submit an application for a sign program and signage prior to installation of
any signage on site. Signage shall conform to the City’s Sign Ordinance.
12. 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.
13. INDEMNIFICATION
Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless
the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees and agents (collectively, the
“indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or 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 to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any
permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the
litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30
days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include
amounts paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff 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.
14. 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 ADMINSTERED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
15. BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
A building permit is required for the alteration to the classrooms and the installation of
the playground structure to guarantee compliance to the 2016 California Building
Codes.
Draft Resolution U-2016-02 April 25, 2017
Page 5
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25
th day of April 2017, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
Benjamin Fu Don Sun
Asst. Director of Community Development Chair, Planning Commission
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
DRAFT RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING AN
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE FEBRUARY 23, 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
OFFICER’S DECISION TO APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE
INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF AN OUTDOOR PLAY STRUCTURE
LOCATED AT 940 S. STELLING ROAD.
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:DIR-2016-34
Applicant:Diane Hsu (Christian Light and Salt Foundation)
Appellant: Srilakshmi Vemulakonda
Location:940 South Stelling Road (APN 359-25-041)
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal of the
Administrative Hearing Officer’s February 23, 2017 decision to approve minor modifications to
the site at an existing church including installation of an outdoor play structure in a Quasi-
Public Building Zone;
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the necessary public hearing notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public
hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds:
1. The application is a minor change to a plan which has received site and designs approval;
The modifications to the landscaping including, the addition of the new playground structure
and installation of a wooden fence are minor changes to an existing site that had previous
architectural and site approval. The playground area is 2% of the overall site. The proposed
modifications for the project is, therefore, considered minor.
Draft Resolution DIR-2016-34 April 25, 2017
Page 2
2. The proposed development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord
with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, underlying zoning regulations, and the
purpose of this title and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed project is consistent with and will be conducted in a manner in accordance with
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, an acoustical study prepared by a
third party consultant using latest best practices has concluded that noise impacts generated
from the project would be “less than significant.” Furthermore, the proposed modifications to
the site are categorically exempt under CEQA in that it involves negligible change to an
existing use or site.
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 Section III and IV of this
Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof, the Application No. DIR-2016-34 is hereby approved;
and that the sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application DIR-2016-34 as set
forth in the Minutes of the Administrative Hearing Meeting of February 23, 2017 and the
Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2017, and are incorporated by reference as though
fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled “Playground Furniture Installation at Good
Shepherd Christian Church, 940 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino CA” consisting of six (6)
sheets labeled as A0.1, A1.1, A1.2, A2.1, L-1 drawn by RCUSA Corporation, two (2)
sheets from Playcraft Systems, and project description dated received January 5, 2017,
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. 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.
Draft Resolution DIR-2016-34 April 25, 2017
Page 3
4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file no. U-2016-02 shall be applicable to this
approval.
5. PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
All previous conditions of approval, in accordance with 6-U-86, Resolution No.2777 as
approved by the Planning Commission on February 3, 1986, and the modification of the
use permit M-2009-05, Resolution No. 6559 as approved by the Planning Commission on
June 23, 2009, shall remain in effect except as may be amended by conditions contained
in this resolution.
6. SIGNAGE
Signage is not approved with this use permit application. The applicant shall be
required to submit an application for a sign program and signage prior to installation of
any signage on site. All signage shall conform to the City’s Sign Ordinance.
7. NOISE CONTROL
Noise levels are not to exceed those listed in Chapter 10.48: Community Noise Control
of the Cupertino Municipal Code, unless approved by special exception by the Noise
Control Officer. Future and periodic tests must be conducted to verify and ensure
continuous compliance with the ordinance at the request of the Community
Development Director.
8. 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.
9. INDEMNIFICATION
Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless
the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees and agents (collectively, the
“indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or 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 to attack, set aside, or void this Resolution or any
permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the
litigation. The applicant shall pay such attorneys’ fees and costs within 30
days following receipt of invoices from City. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include
amounts paid to counsel not otherwise employed as City staff 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.
Draft Resolution DIR-2016-34 April 25, 2017
Page 4
10. 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 ADMINSTERED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT
11. BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
A building permit is required for the alteration to the classrooms and the installation of
the playground structure to guarantee compliance to the 2016 California Building
Codes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April 2017, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
Benjamin Fu Don Sun
Asst. Director of Community Development Chair, Planning Commission
Christian Light and Salt Foundation
940 S Stelling Road
Cupertino CA, 95129
TEL: (408) 242-2927
Fax: (408) 246-2175
Applicant : Christian Light and Salt Foundation
School Business entity: Christian Light and Salt Foundation DBA Good Shepherd
Christian School
School Name: Good Shepherd Christian School
contact Person: Diane Hsu, Business Consultant , (408) 242-2927
Property Owner: Christian Light and Salt Foundation, 940 S Stelling Road,
Cupertino CA, 95129
School Business Owner: Jane Chiu
Project Description:
Use Permit Application : Application for a use permit from the City of Cupertino to
allow a 60-70 medium-sized private school/daycare center (within the multipurpose
room of 2135 sq. ft. and a Sunday School classroom of 720 sq. ft. ) Our program is
designed for children 2 year to 6 years old. The school operating hour will be 7:00 AM
to 6:00 PM. The school will operate year-round and will be closed on designated holidays.
Program schedule:
Full time : 7:00 AM to 6:00PM, Monday to Friday
School Day : 9:00 AM to 3:00PM, Monday to Friday
Early Bird : 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday to Friday
Happy Bear: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday
AM program: 9AM to 11:30 AM
Parking: There are 55 regular parking and 2 handicap parking stalls on the site. Which
will accommodate about 357 parking as per city's parking requirement at 6.5 people per
stall.
Program:
Jr. Preschool (Age 2 to 3.5 years ): Consist of 12 to 16 children with a maximum
staff ratio of 1 childcare provider to every 12 children. The children are involved in
many hands-on activities that blend 5 of the major curriculum areas: Practical Life,
Sensorial, Language, Math and Art. For this age our teaching focus on daily life
education, personal care, potty training if need be, language and sensory development,
math concepts, creative arts and crafts, coordination skills, gross and fine motor skills
development , outdoor activities , emotional development, and building grace and
confidence.
Preschool/Pre-Kindergarten/ Kindergarten (Ages 2 1/2 -6 years) : The mixed age
Group one consists of 22-24 children from two and half through 6 years of age. The
staff consists of 2 teachers, one lead teacher and two teachers for every 12 students.
Group two consists of 22-24 students. The staff consists of 2 teachers , for every 12
students. The daily program in our preschool environment includes the 8 distinct
curriculum area that are : Practical Life, Sensorial, Language, Math, Science,
Geography, and Art . The goal for this program is to build academic competency
through activities and curriculum that blend individual work time with small group
and larger group projects like cooking, science, geography and cultural studies,
Chapel time and outdoor activities.
School Schedule:
The operating hour will be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. with 5 different drop off and pick up
schedules.
Children will take resting period from 12:30 PM to 3:00PM for full time students.
Non-nap students will take a 30-minute to 1 hour rest period.
Lunch will be from 11:45 PM to 12:30 PM
Playground time (recess) will be 30 minutes per classroom and children will be grouped
and playground schedule will be staggered between 9AM and 11:30 AM in the morning
and 30 minutes per room staggered between 3:00PM and 5:30 PM in the afternoon.
Drop off time will begin at 7:00 AM and staggered between 7 AM and 9:30 AM
Pick up time will begin at 3:00 PM and staggered between 3:00PM and 6:00PM
The peak drop off time will be between 9:00AM and 10:00 AM
The peak pick up time will be between 5:00 PM and 6:00PM.
Late pick time : 6:00 PM to 6:30 PM
This is a year round school, with the closure of 11 major holidays and 2 shutdown weeks
1. Between Christmas and New Year (about one and a half weeks) and 2. Spring Break
in April (one week). Occasional evening and weekend uses include: Back to School
Night and Twice a year Open House Events, Seasonal Performance Activities and other
church events.
Circulation study and Parking Analysis:
There will be 8-9 parking spaces required during the operating hour for the staff
members
.
The parking stalls available exceeds the City requirement of 6.5 parking stalls per person.
And there are 55 regular parking and 2 handicap parking stalls.
Children will be dropped off and picked up during the time listed list in school schedule
above. Most transportations will leave after drop-off and pick-up.
Noise Analysis:
1. A Noise study will be conducted and submitted if required depending on staff
comments
Children will be using designated playground located on the parcel at designated
schedule (see sample daily class schedules ) and playground layout/area (see play
ground layout)
The school does not have school bells or loudspeakers.
There will be some bus Services for special events such as field trips, 3 to 4 times per
school year (to pick up children for field trips etc.)
Playground:
1. The site is required by the State of CA Dept. of Social Services to provide a secure and
well-fenced location for children.
2. Children will have direct adult supervision during playground time.
3. Playground will meet the CA State Licensing requirement
Use Permit Justification:
1. The church facility owned by Christian Light and Salt foundation exceeds the
requirement of city and state requirement for private school use. The facility was
designed and built for church and school uses. The plan will attain the objective and
purpose of the General Plan of the City of Cupertino by providing quality child care
service and private school for Cupertinoe community at an affordable rate.
2. The proposed site is in a safe neighborhood, a condition the city encourages and
recommends in the city guideline of permitting school facilities. This location is
convenient for working parents to drop off and pick up their children
3. The site is away from industrial area and is close to residential neighborhood- a good
environment for children. The service will benefit working parents who are tying to
sustain their jobs to meet the demands of long working hours.
4. Christian Light and Salt Foundation will also provide child care services for lower
income parents and children who are on government subsidized programs, such as 4C's,
PACE, Choices for Children etc.
5. The program will serve the high child care demand due to the prosperity of the high-
tech industry in Silicon Valley for City of Cupertino. The proposed use will expand child
care availability for the city.
6. Community member's economic health and quality of life are dependent upon our
youth being prepared to take their rightful place as the professional leaders of the future.
7. This project meets and exceeds the City's general plan-goals and policies
Church Current Activities:
1. Monday: off
2. Tuesday- Friday :10am-5pm, staff office hours, location: church office, headcount: 2-3
3. Friday :7pm-10pm, Cupertino Sister Small Group, location: lobby, headcount: 5-6
4. Sunday: 9:00am-10:30am, worship team practice, location: sanctuary, headcount: 3-5
10:30-11:00am, prayer meeting, location: sanctuary, headcount: 10-20
11:00am-12:30pm, worship service and children Sunday School program, location: entire
facility, headcount: 40-60 adults 12-20 children
12:30pm-3:30pm, lunch and fellowship time, location: entire facility, headcount: 40-60
adults 12-20 children
3:30pm-9:00pm, second church worship and fellowship time, location: entire
facility, headcount: 30-50 adults
Prior After school program: (program closed and moved )
Monday-Friday, 1:00pm-6:30pm, location: entire facility except sanctuary and church
office, headcount: 70-90 children, 5-10 adults
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date:February 23, 2017
SUBJECT
Amendment to an existing Use Permit (6-U-86 and M-2009-05) to consider allowing a private
school/daycare center to operate where an afterschool care is currently allowed and a Director’s
Minor Modification to allow installation of an outdoor play structure. (Application No. (s): U-
2016-02 and DIR-2016-34; Applicant(s): Diane Hsu (Christian Light and Salt Foundation);
Location: 940 S. Stelling Road; APN: 359-25-041)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Hearing Office approve the Use Permit Amendment (U-2016-02) and
the Director’s Minor Modification (DIR-2016-34) per the draft resolution (Attachment 1 and 2).
DISCUSSION:
Application Summary:
1. Amendment to an existing Use Permit (M-2009-05 and 6-U-86) to allow for private
school/daycare center to increase their hours of operation to 7:00 am to 6:30 pm with a total
of 70 students, and
2. Director's Minor Modification to allow for an outdoor play structure.
3. Project Data:
General Plan Designation:Quasi-Public
General Plan Neighborhood:Jollyman
Zoning Designation:BQ (Quasi-Public Building)
Lot Area: 67,114
Acreage: 1.49 acres
Building SF: Existing Proposed
Building A:1,985 square feet
No ChangeBuilding B:1,894 square feet
Building C:2,091 square feet
Parking Stalls Required Proposed
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333
U-2016-02 & DIR-2016-34 940 South Stelling Road February 23, 2017
Page 2
Vehicular Parking 57 stalls No Change
Project Consistency with:
General Plan: Yes
Zoning: Yes
Environmental Assessment:Categorically Exempt
Analysis:
Background
The project site is zoned Quasi-Public Building (BQ). The BQ zone is designed to accommodate
religious, community service, child care, residential care, or recreational facilities in the City.
In 1986, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (6-U-86) to allow the existing church
with approximately 180 attendees, ancillary church-sponsored activities and incidental
community service functions. The BQ zoning district allows child care uses, including afterschool
care uses and daycare facilities, with a Conditional Use Permit.In 2009, the Planning Commission
approved modifications (M-2009-05) to allow an afterschool program for up to 90 children to
operate between 12:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. from Monday through Friday. The afterschool program
operated between 2009 and June 2016.
Applicant Requests
The applicant, Diane Hsu, representing the property owner, Christian Light and Salt Foundation,
is proposing to operate an all-day pre-school/daycare use and install a new play yard and play
structure.
Site Location:
The project site is located at
the southeast corner of South
Stelling Road and Jollyman
Lane. It is bounded by single-
family residences to north,
east, and west. Jollyman Park
abuts the property to the
south.
Project
Figure 1: Aerial Photo
U-2016-02 & DIR-2016-34 940 South Stelling Road February 23, 2017
Page 3
Modification to Use:
The proposed daycare/private school use would have a maximum of 70 students and eight (8)
staff members at any given time. The program is designed for children between the ages of two
and six years old. Children will be signed in and out by their parents/guardians. The proposed
use is consistent with the uses allowed with the previous use permit for the site. The operation of
the pre-school will be reviewed by the California State Department of Licensing, and must
comply with Building and Fire Department requirements prior to final occupancy. No changes
are proposed to the other uses on the site. If the proposed modification to the use is not approved
or a different afterschool operator does not commence operations by July 1, 2017, the use permit
for this use will expire and a new use permit will have to be obtained.
Parking and Traffic:
The pre-school needs a maximum of eleven (11) parking spaces (1 space for every 6.5 students
per Municipal Code). With the proposed project, there will be 57 parking spaces on site. The
applicant has indicated that no additional uses, besides church office uses, will run concurrent
with the pre-school operations. Therefore, there is adequate parking at the site to accommodate
the proposed use. In addition, the applicant has indicated that as part of their traffic management
strategy (that parents are required to adhere to) they will notify their patrons to park in the
parking lot during pick-up and drop-off. The proposed expansion of the hours of operation
would not impact operations at the site or the neighborhood.
The City’s Traffic Engineer has determined that the amount of traffic added during the morning
or afternoon peak commute hour with the existing and modified project is minimal. Furthermore,
the proposed project reduces the number of students that would be allowed from 90 to 70.
Therefore, the proposed use would not create a significant impact on traffic requiring additional
mitigation.
Site Improvements
Outdoor Play Structure and Improvements:
A new six (6) foot redwood fence and gate will be located approximately 32’ from the northern
property line to enclose the area adjacent to the church building. The church proposes to further
enclose approximately 1,350 square feet around the proposed play structure with a secondary
fence for a play yard. This area will be paved with a Poured in Place (PIP) rubber material.
The play structure measures approximately 14 feet in height and is proposed to be setback
approximately 55 feet from the closest residential property (located to the east). The location of
the play structure is in compliance with Chapter 19.100 (Accessory Structures/Buildings) of the
Municipal Code.
As is required with uses that have the potential to cause noise impacts, a Noise Impact and
Mitigation Study was prepared by Environmental Consulting Services, the City’s acoustical
U-2016-02 & DIR-2016-34 940 South Stelling Road February 23, 2017
Page 4
consultant (Attachment 3). The noise study indicated that the nearest sensitive receptors were
two single-family dwelling along the eastern property line. Homes located along Jollyman Lane
are not considered significant receptors because they would be located approximately 300 feet
from the play yard with the new six (6) foot solid board fence acting as an additional buffer.
Activities from the proposed use could create intermittent noise of 50 to 60 dBA at a distance of
30-40 feet with the play yard. This is expected to be 12 to 13 dBA lower in the yards at each of the
two residences due to the wooden fence at the shared property line. Therefore, the noise study
concluded that the proposal would not create any noticeable noise impact on nearby properties.
NOTICING AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing for this project:
Notice of Public Meeting & Site Signage Agenda
Posted on the site (10 days prior to hearing)
48 notices mailed to property owners
adjacent to the project site (10 days prior to
hearing)
Posted on the City's official notice
bulletin board (one week prior to hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web
site (one week prior to hearing)
In addition, the Applicant conducted two public meetings on February 10th, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m. to help the neighbors understand the particulars of the project and receive feedback.
The meeting was attended by four (4) neighbors.
Public Comments:
Staff received comments which are summarized below. Staff responses follow in italics:
1. Questions about the permitted uses.
See “Background” above.
2. Questions about the expiration of the existing afterschool use allowed on the site.
See “Background” and “Modification to Use” sections above.
3. Questions about the details of the proposed project
See project description above.
4. Concerns about parking and traffic impacts
See discussion in “Modification to Use” and “Site Improvements” section re: parking
and traffic impacts.
Parking on public streets (unless restricted with permit parking) is available to the
general public for a period of 72 hours. If it is perceivedthat a violation has occurred with
respect to parking, the Code Enforcement Division should be notified. Furthermore, if
desired,an application for apermit parking zonecould be made by the residents to further
limit public parking.
5. Concerns about noise impacts
U-2016-02 & DIR-2016-34 940 South Stelling Road February 23, 2017
Page 5
See “Site Improvements” discussion above.
6. Safety Concerns
The Sheriff’s Department has communicated that the neighborhood has not been the
subject of extra-ordinary security issues due to the church’s location and activities.
7. Concerns about commercial uses (day care uses) being allowed in neighborhoods
See discussion in “Background” section re: allowed uses in BQ zones.
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT
This matter is adjudicatory and is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code
Section 65920 – 65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit
Streamlining Act.
Project Received: July 29, 2016; Deemed Incomplete:September 1, 2016;
Project Resubmitted:December 12, 2016;Deemed Incomplete: December 21, 2016
Project Resubmitted:January 5, 2017;Deemed Complete: January 20, 2017
The City has 60 days (until March 21, 2017) to make a decision on the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA, Section 15301, Class 1, existing facilities).
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the Use Permit Modification and Director’s Minor Modification,
since the plans and conditions of approval address all concerns to the proposed project.
Additionally, all of the findings for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapter
19.156 and Chapter 19.164 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be made as reflected in the draft
resolutions.
NEXT STEPS
Should the project be approved, the Hearing Officer’s decision on this project is final unless an
appeal is filed within 14 calendar days of the date of the mailing of the decision. All approvals
granted by the Hearing Officer shall go into effect after 14 days.
Upon project approval, the applicant will be able to submit building permit drawings to enable
construction to commence. These approvals expire on February 9, 2018, at which time the
applicant may apply for a one-year extension.
Prepared by: Erick Serrano, Associate Planner
Reviewed and Submitted by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner
U-2016-02 & DIR-2016-34 940 South Stelling Road February 23, 2017
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1- Draft Resolution (Use Permit Amendment)
2- Draft Resolution (Director’s Minor Modification)
3- Applicant Project Description
4- Noise Study
5- Plan Set
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
______________________________________________________________________________________
Environmental Consulting Services 18488 Prospect Road – Suite 1, Saratoga, CA 95070
Phone: (408) 257-1045 stanshell99@toast.net
______________________________________________________________________________________
September 9, 2016
Mr. Erick Serrano
Associate Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Noise Impact and Mitigation Study for Good Shepherd Christian Preschool,
940 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino
Dear Mr. Serrano,
In response to your request I have evaluated the potential noise impacts that could be produced at
nearby residential receptor locations by the proposed new preschool activities at Good Shepherd Lutheran
Church in Cupertino. The report discusses the present environment, the proposed project and its
associated noise-related aspects, the potential new activities and operational noise impacts at the nearest
receptors in the area, and compliance with Cupertino noise guidelines.
To summarize the conclusions of the report, the proposed changes to the on-site activities would
meet the City noise ordinance limitations and would not produce any significant noise disturbance in the
vicinity of the site.
Project Description [1] [2]
The proposed new preschool activity would provide weekday daytime care for toddler and preschool-
age kids from ages 2 through 6 on the subject church site. This full-day activity would replace the present
afterschool program for school age kids 5 through 12 years old that is onsite from noon to 6 pm on
weekdays during the school year. The preschool proposes to use the same 3 classrooms and the outdoor
play yard as at present, and in addition, an outdoor play structure would be constructed. The site and the
school-related elements are shown in Exhibit 1. There are six-foot wood fences bordering the outdoor play
area on the north and east property lines facing the adjacent residential areas. Temporary parking for drop-
off and pickup of children would use the church parking lot that has 55 regular and 2 handicapped spaces.
School Program [2]
The preschool program would serve 60-70 kids with a staff of 8-9, on a normal workday schedule of
7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday year round. There could be occasional evening or major
holiday activities held on site. The school would be closed on 11 major holidays and would be closed 10
days between Christmas and New Years, and one week in April. There would be 5 different drop-off and
pick-up schedules to spread out arrivals and departures, as follows:
Drop off time will begin at 7:00 AM and staggered between 7 AM and 9:30 AM
Pick up time will begin at 3:00 PM and staggered between 3:00PM and 6:00PM
The peak drop off time will be between 9:00AM and 10:00 AM
The peak pick up time will be between 5:00 PM and 6:00PM.
Late pick time: 6:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Good Shepard Christian Preschool Noise Study – Cupertino Page 2 of 5
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Playground time (recess) will be 30 minutes per classroom. The playground schedule will be
staggered between 9AM and 11:30 AM in the morning and 30 minutes per room staggered between 3 PM
and 5:30 PM in the afternoon. A new outdoor climbing and play structure appropriate for the 2-6 age group
would be constructed in the existing outdoor play area, as shown in Exhibit 1. There would be at least one
staff person for every 6 infants/toddlers, and one staff person for every 12 preschoolers. The adjacent
Jollyman Park would be used occasionally for special activities, such as nature walks or picnics.
Inside activities would include normal school educational, creative, and play activities in church
classrooms and the multipurpose room.
Sensitive Receptor Locations
The project area is a mixed residential and city park neighborhood on the east side of Jollyman
Avenue in Cupertino, south of McClelland Drive. The nearest sensitive receptor locations for noise
generated by the project includes two single-family dwellings along the east property line. There is a
driveway between the church play area fence on the property line and the garages of both homes, with the
homes on the other side of the garages. The two closest homes across Jollyman Lane are about 100 feet
from the play area and 200 feet from the play structure, with an intervening 6 foot wood fence on the church
property, so they are not considered significant receptors for preschool noise. Other residential receptors in
the area would have less noise due to increased distance and building obstruction.
Exhibit 1 - Good Shepherd Christian Preschool site plan
This study investigates the extent to which the closest adjacent residences could be impacted by
noise from preschool activities. The existing ambient noise environment and potential noise impacts are
discussed in the following sections. Two residences Jollyman Park
Preschool outdoor play area
Noise measurement locations
New play structure
2
1 Driveway
Good Shepard Christian Preschool Noise Study – Cupertino Page 3 of 5
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Ambient Noise Levels and Noise Sources in the Area
The primary source of ambient noise in the project area is traffic on South Stelling Road, a two-lane
residential street on the west side of the Church site. Typical vehicle passby noise levels are in the 60-70
dBA range at 25 feet. Trucks, buses, motorcycles, and poorly-muffled vehicles produce peak levels 5 to 15
dBA higher on passby. Large and small aircraft and helicopter overflights create infrequent noise incidents
of 55 to 65 dBA. Typical sporadic neighborhood activities are garbage pickup and also residential yard
maintenance. There are no other significant noise sources in the project area.
Field noise measurements were made during the afternoon period of September 1, 2016 with a CEL-
440 Precision Noise Meter and Analyzer, calibrated with a B & K Model 4230 Sound Level Calibrator.
Measurement locations were chosen to represent ambient noise levels adjacent to key receptor locations,
as shown in Exhibit 1 and described below. There was no play yard activity, since the present afterschool
program does not have summer activities.
Location 1 – in the southeast corner of the play yard and adjacent to one of the adjacent Jollyman
Lane residence garages
Location 2 -- in the northeast corner of the play yard and adjacent to the other adjacent Jollyman
Lane residence garage
Noise levels were measured and are reported using percentile noise descriptors, as follows: L90
(the background noise level exceeded 90 % of the time), L50 (the median noise level exceeded 50% of the
time), L1 (the peak level exceeded 1% of the time), and Leq (the average energy-equivalent noise level).
Measured noise levels are presented in Exhibit 2 below. The Ldn noise levels were computed as the long-
term average of the Leq using the daily traffic distribution in the area, with standard weighted penalties for
the nighttime hours, and modeled with an enhanced version of the National Cooperative Highway Research
Board traffic noise model [5].
EXHIBIT 2
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (dBA)
Good Shepherd Christian Preschool project area
Receptor location L90 L50 Leq L1 Ldn
1. southeast corner of play area 44 45 47 54 49
2. northeast corner of play area 41 43 46 56 48
Traffic is the dominant noise source near the project site, with noise levels at any location in the area
depending upon volume, speed and distance to traffic on South Stelling Road. The low noise
measurements reflect the fact that the outdoor play area for the preschool and the sensitive receptor
residences beyond are at least 350 feet from the road, with the several-story tall church building also
shielding the area from traffic noise.
Relevant Cupertino Noise Ordinance Limits [3]
Section 10.48.040 of the Cupertino Noise Ordinance is applicable to this project, which limits noise
during daytime hours (7 am to 8 pm) on residential property to 55 dBA, and 50 dBA during evening hours
(8pm to 7am). In addition, brief daytime noise incidents are allowed with somewhat higher noise levels by
Ordinance section 10.48.050. For example, noise incidents that last less than 15 minutes during any two
hour period are allowed to be 5 dB higher than the long-term general limits.
Good Shepard Christian Preschool Noise Study – Cupertino Page 4 of 5
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Potential Christian Preschool Noise Impacts
Outdoor playground activities
Most outdoor activities would occur in the existing play area behind the church building, as shown in
Exhibit 1. This is a mostly bare dirt area with some foliage and trees, which has been used in the existing
after-school program. The only changes to be made would be the installation of a children’s play structure,
with a poured-in-place smooth rubberized ground cover around it. Several types of play activities would be
included in the back yard area for the post-toddler kids, including climbing structure play, use of tricycles
and other plastic riding toys, group games, games with balls, and other appropriate outdoor play activities.
Playground time (recess) will be 30 minutes for each of the three classrooms, 16 to 24 kids at a time.
The playground schedule for each class will be 30 minutes at different times between 9AM and 11:30 AM in
the morning and 30 minutes per class at different times between 3 PM and 5:30 PM in the afternoon. Each
play period would be supervised by one or two adults, as appropriate.
All of the project noise would be from sporadic voices of the young kids and staff during outdoor play
periods. Activities of this type can create intermittent brief noise from voices of 50 to 60 dBA at a distance of
30-40 feet within the play yard. The closest adjacent residence is approximately40 feet from the play yard,
with two 6-foot wood fences intervening. The other residence is 60 feet from the play yard. In both cases
the garage is between the play yard and the house. Distance and the property line wood fences reduce the
play yard noise at each residence by 12 to 13 dBA. The expected worst-case noise levels in the nearest
residential yards from outdoor play activities are shown in Exhibit 2.
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT NOISE LEVELS (dBA)
Good Shepherd Cristian School, Cupertino
Receptor location Max Yard Noise
Levels
1. adjacent Jollyman Lane residence - south 43-48
2. adjacent Jollyman Lane residence - north 45-50
Noise levels from voices during outdoor play periods would be noticeable in the adjacent residential
yards, but would be much below the 55 dBA City noise ordinance limits, and would not be considered
disturbing with existing normal daytime noise levels. The project adds three new morning play periods of 30
minutes, causing sporadic noise levels above the ambient in residential yards, which would increase the
morning Leq by 2 dB or less, and so would have less than one dB impact on the present 24-hr Ldn less than
50 dBA.
Note that project parking lot noise generated by school-related trips would be similar to parking lot
trips for previous uses at the location, and would be less than noise from traffic on S. Stelling Road.
Project Traffic Noise [4] [5]
Because of relatively high traffic volumes on S. Stelling Road, in the range of 9,000 trips per day, the
new trips generated by the Preschool program, approximately 70 trips over a couple hours in the morning
and 70 trips over a couple hours in the afternoon, would produce less than a 10% increase in traffic on
Stelling Road, which would produce much less than a 1 dB change in the traffic noise level at residences on
Stelling Road.
Temporary Construction Noise
The only construction associated with the Preschool would be the construction of the play structure
next to the church building (see Exhibit 1), and the pouring of a rubberized play surface under and around it.
This could create several days of sporadic noise from small motorized equipment and small tool
construction activity, in the range of 60-70 dBA at 50 feet, which could create intermittent noise levels in this
range for residences on adjacent properties.
Good Shepard Christian Preschool Noise Study – Cupertino Page 5 of 5
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Conclusions and Summary
Overall ambient noise levels in the project area now depend primarily on traffic noise, and this will
continue to be the dominant noise source in the area in the foreseeable future. The primary noticeable
noise would be intermittent and brief voice incidents from young children playing in the area behind the
Church building. With the informal type of play activities, the age of the kids, and the distances and/or fence
protection involved, these activities would be within City noise ordinance limits, and would not create any
noise impacts in the adjacent residential areas. Thus the new preschool use, adding new morning outdoor
playtimes, would not create any noticeable noise impact and would result in a “Less than Significant” noise
impact on any nearby properties
If I may be of further assistance on this project, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
Stan Shelly
H. Stanton Shelly
Acoustical Consultant
Board Certified Member (1982)
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
REFERENCES
1. Project drawings A1.1 and A1.2, Good Shepherd Christian School, RCUSA Corp, San Jose, CA; July
2016,
2. Project description and preschool schedules, Diane Hsu, Consultant, Christian Light and Salt
Foundation, 940 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino; August 2016.
3. Noise Ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.48, Noise levels for residential and commercial zones; City
of Cupertino. .
4. Cupertino ADT Traffic Volumes, Public Works, Oct 2013.
5. Highway Noise - A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 117, Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
1971 (model enhanced and field validated by ECS).
Good Shepherd Preschool Noise Appendix Page A 1
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Appendix Contents
Environmental Noise Concepts and Definitions A 1
The Impacts of Noise on People A 2
Typical Noise Levels and Effects A 4
Environmental Noise Measurement and Analysis Procedures A 5
----------------
Environmental Noise Concepts and Definitions
Sound is the rapid fluctuation of air pressure higher and lower than normal atmospheric pressure. The term
noise is used to mean unwanted or undesirable sound, but this a very subjective matter depending upon the
individual; the terms noise and sound are often considered interchangeable in normal usage. The frequency of
the sound, or pitch if it has a dominant pure tone, is the number of fluctuations of air pressure each second. If
the sound frequency is within a range of roughly 50 to 15,000 cycles per second (Hertz), it is audible to persons
with normal hearing. Another characteristic of sound is its loudness, usually measured and reported in decibels
(dB), a shorthand logarithmic unit that avoids having to deal in the very large numbers describing the range of
sound levels in its basic engineering units. Examples of common noise sources and their sound levels are found
on Page A 4.
The basic issues in dealing with the community and environmental noise are its effects and the way it is
perceived by most persons (see the Effects section, Page A 2). Therefore, the noise must be measured or
modeled, and then compared to guidelines, regulations, and known effects. For these purposes the decibel is
used with "A-weighting", meaning that the lower and higher frequencies are de-emphasized to match the
sensitivity of human hearing at different frequencies, as opposed to a "flat" frequency response in which all
frequencies are equal. Unless otherwise stated, all references to decibels relative to human effects and
community impacts are in "A-weighted" decibels, or dBA, in the usual abbreviated form. These decibel values
are then referred to as noise levels, or sound levels. The equipment used to measure noise levels is called a
sound level meter.
In spite of the tendency to describe environmental noise levels with single-number descriptors for
simplicity, the most characteristic feature of noise that people experience in their communities is its extreme
variability. So to better understand what a particular noise environment is really like, more than one descriptor is
generally used to describe its variability. For example, the average noise level may be accompanied by the
maximum or highest noise level, and also the minimum noise level occurring during a particular time period. For
example, in some cases it would be more important to know that the minimum noise level is 45 dBA and the
maximum noise level is 90 dBA, than that the average noise level is 55 dBA.
There are literally dozens of different types of noise environment descriptors, each developed to give
information on the effect of a specific type of noise under certain conditions--such as for aircraft noise, for speech
intelligibility, or for hearing impairment. In recent years governmental agencies have been standardizing on the
use of Ln, Leq, or Ldn. Ln, where n is a number in percent, refers to the noise level exceeded n percent of the
time. For example, traffic noise may be generated along a freeway such that at a distance of 100 feet from the
roadway the noise level is 70 dB or higher ten percent of the time. Hence its L10 noise level is reported as 70
dBA. The L50, or median noise level, is also often used as a noise descriptor. The Leq also often is used, since
it reflects the single noise level that has the same energy as the varying noise environment, and reflects more
accurately the impact of high noise incidents. Ldn is a 24-hour Leq computation with a 10-dB "penalty" during
the 10 p.m. to 7 am time period, when a quieter environment is expected. In other words, a location with a 55
dBA daytime Leq would have a 55 dBA Ldn if the noise level dropped to 45 dB during the night time hours. The
Good Shepherd Preschool Noise Appendix Page A 2
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
State of California and many local agencies use the CNEL, which is nearly the same as Ldn with an additional 5
dB “penalty” from 7 pm to 10 pm. In normal community environments, Ldn and CNEL are nearly the same. The
equipment for measuring statistical noise descriptors is called a Noise Level Analyzer.
The "ambient" noise level refers to the combination of all sources of noise at a given location. The
"background" noise is similar, but refers to the combination of distant sources that determines the minimum
sound levels in any location. The L90 or L99 statistical descriptors often are used as a measure of the
background noise level.
To more readily understand and compare differences in noise levels from one location to another, equal
noise contours are often developed for a given site. Most often L10 or Ldn noise level contours are used, joining
locations on a site that have the same noise level, in 5 or 10 dB increments. Noise contour maps are similar to
plotting equal elevations on a topographic contour map.
Several concepts are particularly important in discussing what to do about unwanted noise —mitigation,
reduction and attenuation; the terms have the same meaning in general usage-- to lower noise levels in a
receptor area. Reflection is one common noise reduction method, which diverts sound energy from a location of
high impact to an area of less impact, such as when using a noise barrier. Noise absorption is a mechanism by
which some materials, such as thick foliage outdoors or fiberglass batts used as insulation, absorb sound energy
and thus reduce its impact.
Mathematical noise models are often used in projecting noise levels that cannot be directly measured,
such as in the case of future traffic or airport conditions. Noise models use previously-measured and analyzed
relationships between noise source characteristics and physical and geometric conditions to compute future
noise levels with relatively good accuracy. A number of models for projecting aircraft noise, roadway traffic noise
and railroad noise have been developed and are in widespread use.
The Impacts of Noise on People
Noise is a part of our modern society—noise from motorized laborsaving devices, transportation sources,
and recreation devices. The use or conversion of energy for any purpose is seldom accomplished silently.
Humans typically have a capacity to tolerate or ignore a certain amount of noise in the environment. But adverse
effects are present in many exposures to noise, and dangers to health other than outright hearing impairment
also are recognized.
The problem of controlling noise is difficult because it affects each individual differently. People do not
hear sounds similarly, hence they do not react to sound in the same way. First of all, each person's reaction to
noise depends upon the characteristics of the noise itself:
loudness
frequency
duration
time of occurrence
unfamiliarity or uniqueness
But the effect of a noise on people also depends upon the situation:
background or ambient noise level
individual sensitivity to noise intrusion
activity or preoccupation of listener
perceived need or justification for noise
The factors that determine how much a person is disturbed by a noise include physiological effects,
psychological/emotional effects, and activity interference.
Good Shepherd Preschool Noise Appendix Page A 3
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
To better understand the use of the decibel as a measure of relative loudness, a list of common noise
sources and their approximate sound levels are given on Page A 4.
Recognizing Noise Level Changes
When a noise environment or a noise level changes, typical responses to it are as follows:
A change of 1 dBA is not noticeable
A change of 3 dBA typically is heard
A change of 5 dbA is very noticeable and can be intrusive
A change of 10 dBA is a substantial and disturbing change (representing a doubling of the
loudness)
Note that combining noise from two sources with the same noise level, because of the logrithmic
nature of the decibel, increases the combined noise level by 3 dB. So adding two 50 dB sources
results in a combined noise level of 53 dB.
Physiological Noise Effects
At relatively high noise levels above 80 dBA, the delicate internal ear mechanism can be altered to cause
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), resulting in partial deafness for a period of a few minutes to a few weeks,
depending upon the noise level and the exposure duration. If these excessive levels over 80 dBA are continued
over long periods of time (for example, eight hours a day for several years), or very high levels (over 100 dB) are
experienced for shorter periods, Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) may occur. PTS is an irreversible loss in
normal hearing capacity.
Fortunately, few exposures to levels causing hearing damage occur in the typical community noise
environment. However, some problems can be experienced by those attending or participating in regular
musical and recreational events with high noise environments, or by those engaged in occupations involving high
workplace noise levels, regulated by State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health codes. The potential for
other less damaging, but nonetheless disturbing, noise effects exists throughout our normal daily schedules--at
home, school, shopping center, park, or highway. These noise impacts can cause subtle physical, mental and
emotional stresses of varying degrees of seriousness.
Activity Interference
Noise can disrupt human activities such as sleep, conversation, or stereo and TV enjoyment. Studies
have shown that noise not only can prevent sleep because of its intensity or characteristics, but also can
seriously disturb the quality of sleep without waking the sleeper. Conditions such as these, community noise
causing bedroom noise levels between 35 and 50 dBA, are encountered to some extent in many urbanized
areas, particularly near high volume traffic or airports. At interior noise levels over 55 dBA, all types of normal
speaking and listening activities are disrupted. Speech intelligibility drops sharply, music listening and TV
watching become strained, and aural communications must be carried out at much higher volumes to be
successful. Obviously, shouting to be heard and understood is both undesirable and unpleasant for all
concerned.
Psychological and Emotional Impacts
Less well-documented and understood, but probably more widely experienced, are those impact of noise
that cause such subtle effects as distraction, annoyance, startle, privacy interruption, stress and tension. These
effects as a class can, if continued, cause very serious emotional and psychological anxieties and disturbances.
Often the increased irritability and tenseness are not directly attributed to the noise environment, as the listener
may not be consciously aware of the noise intrusion. Our human ability to "tolerate" and "adapt to" disturbing
noise levels thus can adversely affect our subconscious body processes. Protection against the intrusion of
Good Shepherd Preschool Noise Appendix Page A 4
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
disturbing noise is particularly important to mental and emotional health in an active and complex urban
community.
Good Shepherd Preschool Noise Appendix Page A 5
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Typical Noise Levels and Effects
Noise Sources Noise Level (dBA) Human Response or Impact
Jet aircraft takeoff (100') 130
Auto horn (3') 120 Threshold of pain
Rock music in a club 110 Deafening
Motorcycle accelerating, no
muffler (25')
100 Very loud
Motorcycle accelerating,
stock muffler (25')
90 Intrusive
Food blender (3')
Power lawn mower (20')
80 Very disturbing to most
activities
Steady urban traffic (25') 70 Communications difficult
Normal conversation (3') 60
Daytime street, distant traffic 50 Sleep disturbance
Quiet office 40
Inside quiet home.
Soft whisper (10')
30 Very quiet
Movie or recording studio 20 Seldom-experienced ambient
10 Barely audible to good
hearing
Threshold of hearing 0
Good Shepherd Preschool Noise Appendix Page A 6
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Environmental Noise Measurement and Analysis Procedures
1. Select monitoring sites representative of worst-case sensitive receptor areas, topography, noise
sources, and noise transmission characteristics.
2. Perform field noise measurements of long-term statistical variation in the project area and, if appropriate
for project traffic, on access routes to the project, 20-30 minutes in each location. Record key statistical
descriptors, including L90, L50, L10, L1, and Leq.
Equipment:
Precision Sound Level Meter and Analyzer, CEL Model 440
Sound Level Calibrator, Bruel and Kjaer Model 4230
3. Record noise levels for significant individual sources and incidents in the project area.
4. Compute Ldn/CNEL values based on field measurements and traffic noise model based on traffic
volume variation throughout the day. Without specific hourly traffic count data, use typical commute-
based daily volumes as follows for the daily traffic modeling:
Period Hours Hourly Vol
(% ADT)
A. 7 a.m. — 9 a.m. 2 7.5
B. 9 a.m. — 4 p.m. 7 5.6
C. 4 p.m. — 7 p.m. (no peak) 2 7.0
D. 7 p.m. — 10 p.m. 3 4.0
E. 10 p.m. — Midnight 2 2.5
F. Midnight — 7 a.m. 7 0.7
G. Peak Hour 1 10.0
To: Mayor and City Council Members
Planning Commissioners
From: Benjamin Fu, Assist. Director of Community Development
Date: February 28, 2017
Subj: REPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DECISION MADE
February 23, 2017
Chapter 19.12.170 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for
Appeal of decisions made at an Administrative Hearing
1. Application
U-2016-02, DIR-2016-34, Diane Hsu (Christian Light & Salt Foundation), 940 S Stelling
Rd.
Description
Modification of an existing Use Permit (6-U-86 and M-2009-05) to consider allowing a
private school/daycare center to operate where an afterschool care is currently allowed
and a Director’s Minor Modification to allow installation of an outdoor play structure.
Action
The application was approved at the Administrative Hearing. The approval is effective February
23, 2017. The fourteen-calendar day appeal will expire on March 9, 2017.
Enclosures:
Administrative Hearing Report of February 23, 2017
Resolution No(s) 79 and 80
Plan set
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
