Loading...
CC 05-06-2025 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue and via Teleconference; and Teleconference Location Pursuant to Government Code section 54953(b)(2) Dubai Airport 7947+MP Dubai - United Arab Emirates, Terminal 3, Departures Tuesday, May 6, 2025 6:00 PM Non-Televised Closed Session (6:00) and Televised Open Session Regular Meeting (6:45) IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways: 1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways: 1) Appear in person for Closed Session in City Hall, Conference Room C or for Open Session in Cupertino Community Hall. Members of the public may provide oral public comments pertaining to the agenda prior to the beginning of Closed Session and after Roll Call. Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the Open Session as follows: Oral public comments will be accepted during the meeting. Comments may be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public comment period for each agenda item. Members of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves. Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments. Page 1 1 CC 05-06-2025 1 of 554 City Council Agenda May 6, 2025 2) E-mail comments for Closed Session or Open Session by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5 to the Council at citycouncil@cupertino.gov. These e-mail comments will also be forwarded to Councilmembers by the City Clerk’s office before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting. Members of the public that wish to share a document must email cityclerk@cupertino.gov prior to the meeting. Emailed comments received following the agenda publication, prior to or during the meeting, will be posted to the City’s website Comments on non-agenda items will be included upon the sender's request. 3) Open Session Teleconferencing Instructions To address the City Council, click on the link below to register in advance and access the meeting: Online Register in advance for this webinar: https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_J62mukrTRhmM2EAVBK2-1g Phone Dial: 669-900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 896 5154 5127 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak, *6 to unmute yourself). Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number. Join from an H.323/SIP room system: H.323: 144.195.19.161 (US West) 206.247.11.121 (US East) Meeting ID: 896 5154 5127 SIP: 89651545127@zoomcrc.com After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Please read the following instructions carefully: 1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer. Page 2 2 CC 05-06-2025 2 of 554 City Council Agenda May 6, 2025 2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your name, you may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation. 3. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand,” or, if you are calling in, press *9. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. 4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic. 5. Members of the public that wish to share a document must email cityclerk@cupertino.gov prior to the meeting. These documents will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting. ROLL CALL - 6:00 PM 10300 Torre Avenue, Conference Room C and Teleconference Location Pursuant to Government Code section 54953(b)(2) Dubai Airport 7947+MP Dubai - United Arab Emirates, Terminal 3, Departures CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject: Conference with Labor Negotiators pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 (Kristina Alfaro and Christopher Boucher) RECESS OPEN SESSION CALL TO ORDER - 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall and via Teleconference and Teleconference Location Pursuant to Government Code section 54953(b)(2) Dubai Airport 7947+MP Dubai - United Arab Emirates, Terminal 3, Departures PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION REPORT CEREMONIAL ITEMS 2.Subject: Recognition of May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month Recommended Action: Recognize May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month Page 3 3 CC 05-06-2025 3 of 554 City Council Agenda May 6, 2025 3.Subject: Proclamation to Charities Housing and Silicon Valley at Home in conjunction with May as Affordable Housing Month Recommended Action: Present proclamation recognizing Charities Housing and Silicon Valley at Home in conjunction with May as Affordable Housing Month A - Proclamation (Charities Housing) B - Proclamation (Silicon Valley at Home) 4.Subject: Proclamation to the County of Santa Clara Department of Family and Children’s Services recognizing May as National Foster Care Awareness Month Recommended Action: Present proclamation to the County of Santa Clara Department of Family and Children’s Services recognizing May as National Foster Care Awareness Month A - Proclamation POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council and not on the agenda for discussion. The total time for Oral Communications will ordinarily be limited to one hour. Individual speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. As necessary, the Chair may further limit the time allowed to individual speakers, or reschedule remaining comments to the end of the meeting on a first come first heard basis, with priority given to students. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. A councilmember may, however, briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers. A councilmember may also ask a question for clarification, provide a reference for factual information, request staff to report back concerning a matter, or request that an item be added to a future City Council agenda in response to public comment. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5-8) Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine City business and may be approved by one motion. Typical items may include meeting minutes, awards of contracts, the ratification of accounts payable, and second readings of ordinances. Any member of the Council may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar based on the rules set forth in the City Council Procedures Manual. Members of the public may provide input on one or more consent calendar items when the Mayor asks for public comments on the Consent Calendar. 5.Subject: Approval of April 15, 2025 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the April 15, 2025 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes Page 4 4 CC 05-06-2025 4 of 554 City Council Agenda May 6, 2025 6.Subject: Approval of Updated Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (IAP) Recommended Action: Approve the Updated Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (IAP) Staff Report A – Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (Redline) B – Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (Clean) 7.Subject: Approve a Seventh Amendment to the MIG, Inc. design consultant agreement for the All-Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park project for a total not-to-exceed amount of $533,821 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Seventh Amendment to the agreement with MIG, Inc. for Design Professional Services on the All-Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park project (420-99-051, PO# 2022-0326) increasing the contract amount by $21,410, for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $533,821. Staff Report A – Draft Amendment 8.Subject: Approve a Fourth Amendment to the Tanko Lighting Master Agreement for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Streetlight Transition Project correcting the maximum compensation amount to $336,172. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Fourth Amendment to the master agreement (#653) with Tanko Lighting for Design Professional Services on the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Streetlight Transition Project (420-99-258) correcting the maximum compensation amount to $336,172. Staff Report A – Draft Fourth Amendment to Tanko Lighting Master Agreement B – Third Amendment to Tanko Lighting Master Agreement PUBLIC HEARINGS Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to planning@cupertino.org. Plans will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal. 9.Subject: Approval of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on the Transition of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing within a One Half Mile Radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino; or approval of a Resolution Encouraging the Building of Newly Constructed Student Housing and Preventing the Conversion of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing within the City of Cupertino. Page 5 5 CC 05-06-2025 5 of 554 City Council Agenda May 6, 2025 Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Open and conduct a public hearing to consider the attached interim urgency ordinance; and 2a. Waive further reading and adopt, by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the City Council, the attached interim urgency Ordinance No. 25-2270 by title only (the same to take effect immediately upon adoption), entitled, “An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, California, Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code section 65858 Establishing a 45-Day Temporary Moratorium on the Transition of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing Within One Half Mile Radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino During the Pendency of the City’s Review and Adoption of Permanent Zoning Regulations for Such Uses”; or 2b. Adopt Resolution No. 25-025 Encouraging the Building of Newly Constructed Student Housing and Preserving Multiple-Family Use Housing By Preventing the Conversion of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing Within the City of Cupertino Staff Report A – Moratorium Radius Map B - Draft Ordinance C – Draft Resolution 10.Subject: Approval of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Fee Schedule Update Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 25-026 approving FY 2025-26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by July 6, 2025. Staff Report A - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule A - General Fees (Redline) B - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule B - Engineering Fees (Redline) C - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule C - Planning Fees (Redline) D - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule D - Building Fees (Redline) E - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule A - General Fees (Clean) F - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule B - Engineering Fees (Clean) G - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule C - Planning Fees (Clean) H - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule D - Building Fees (Clean) I – Draft Resolution J - User Fee Cost Recovery Policy 11.Subject: Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 to Receive a Report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts. Recommended Action: Receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3. Page 6 6 CC 05-06-2025 6 of 554 City Council Agenda May 6, 2025 Staff Report A - Assembly Bill 2561 ACTION CALENDAR 12.Subject: Review future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers (Continued from April 15, 2025) Recommended Action: 1. Review the future agenda items list and adopt the staff recommendations for items 1-14 and 16-17 2. Provide direction for item 15 Staff Report A - Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion B - Future Agenda Items List as of May 2025 C - Supplemental Report from April 15, 2025 City Council Meeting 13.Subject: Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building 1. (Application No(s): M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California (Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt the proposed draft resolutions (Attachment A & B) to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-027 approving the First Addendum to an EIR and approving the Development Permit Amendment (M-2024-003); and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-028 approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003). Staff Report A - Draft Resolution for M-2024-003 B - Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-003 C - Planning Commission Resolution 2025-05 D - Planning Commission Resolution 2025-06 E - Letter from J. Abrams Law to Cupertino City Staff dated June 18, 2024 F - Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 G - Project Plans H - Public Comments I - Applicant Parking Exhibit 14.Subject: Per the Council's direction, review potential Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects to be defunded from the current approved list. Recommended Action: City Council shall consider: A) Which of the following projects to consider defunding and eliminating, or; B) Reaffirm the current Capital Improvement Programs project list. Page 7 CC 05-06-2025 7 of 554 City Council Agenda May 6, 2025 Staff Report A – FY 25-26 CIP Project Narratives-defunding review B – FY 25-26 CIP Fiscal Summary Table C – Photovoltaic Systems project cost analysis February 2025 15.Subject: Introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 pertaining to Removal of Closed Session Start Time and Clarification that Meetings Rescheduled Due to Holidays or Elections Retain Regular Meeting Status Recommended Action: Introduce Ordinance No. 25-2271: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code amending Section 2.04.010, pertaining to closed session and regular meetings, by title only, and waive the first reading." Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance (redline) B - Draft Ordinance (clean) ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR CITY MANAGER REPORT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS 16.Subject: Councilmember Reports A - Councilmember Report, Chao B - Councilmember Report, Fruen C - Councilmember Report, Mohan D - Councilmember Report, Moore E - Councilmember Report, Wang FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report is a tentative council meeting agenda calendar that lists upcoming City Council meeting dates and tentative agenda items, all of which are subject to change. 17.Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report A - Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report ADJOURNMENT Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence legislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists. Page 8 CC 05-06-2025 8 of 554 City Council Agenda May 6, 2025 For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; telephone (408) 777-3223; email cityclerk@cupertino.org; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist. The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website. Page 9 9 CC 05-06-2025 9 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13916 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 1. Subject: Conference with Labor Negotiators pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 (Kristina Alfaro and Christopher Boucher) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™10 CC 05-06-2025 10 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13635 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 2. Subject:Recognition of May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month Recognize May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™11 CC 05-06-2025 11 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13636 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 3. Subject: Proclamation to Charities Housing and Silicon Valley at Home in conjunction with May as Affordable Housing Month Present proclamation recognizing Charities Housing and Silicon Valley at Home in conjunction with May as Affordable Housing Month CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™12 CC 05-06-2025 12 of 554 Proclamation WHEREAS, Affordable housing is one of the cornerstones of democracy and is a basic need and right of everyone, and the City of Cupertino wishes to heighten public awareness of fair housing and fair treatment of communities in the region; and WHEREAS, Many Silicon Valley families and individuals struggle to find affordable homes in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation; and WHEREAS, The local affordable housing community, including organizations like Charities Housing, concentrates efforts on the production, protection, and preservation of affordable housing options; and WHEREAS, Many organizations throughout our region should continue working collaboratively to provide safe, stable, permanent, and affordable housing to all members of our community and continue bringing the need for affordable housing to the forefront of discussion; and WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino joins Charities Housing in supporting affordable housing efforts and wishes to focus public attention on May as Affordable Housing Month. THEREFORE, I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council do hereby proclaim the month of May in the City of Cupertino as Affordable Housing Month and encourage every person and community organization to support affordable housing efforts and to collaborate in finding viable, creative solutions to increase housing affordability for everyone. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Cupertino to be affixed this Tuesday, May 6, 2025. ____________________________ The Honorable Liang Chao Mayor, City of Cupertino 13 CC 05-06-2025 13 of 554 Proclamation WHEREAS, Affordable housing is one of the cornerstones of democracy and is a basic need and right of everyone, and the City of Cupertino wishes to heighten public awareness of fair housing and fair treatment of communities in the region; and WHEREAS, Many Silicon Valley families and individuals struggle to find affordable homes in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation; and WHEREAS, The local affordable housing community, including organizations like Silicon Valley at Home, concentrates efforts on the production, protection, and preservation of affordable housing options; and WHEREAS, Many organizations throughout our region should continue working collaboratively to provide safe, stable, permanent, and affordable housing to all members of our community and continue bringing the need for affordable housing to the forefront of discussion; and WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino joins Silicon Valley at Home in supporting affordable housing efforts and wishes to focus public attention on May as Affordable Housing Month. THEREFORE, I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council do hereby proclaim the month of May in the City of Cupertino as Affordable Housing Month and encourage every person and community organization to support affordable housing efforts and to collaborate in finding viable, creative solutions to increase housing affordability for everyone. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Cupertino to be affixed this Tuesday, May 6, 2025. ____________________________ The Honorable Liang Chao Mayor, City of Cupertino 14 CC 05-06-2025 14 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13792 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 4. Subject: Proclamation to the County of Santa Clara Department of Family and Children’s Services recognizing May as National Foster Care Awareness Month Present proclamation to the County of Santa Clara Department of Family and Children’s Services recognizing May as National Foster Care Awareness Month CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™15 CC 05-06-2025 15 of 554 Proclamation WHEREAS, The month of May is set aside as National Foster Care Month to recognize the collaborative relationships across community organizations to support youth in foster care programs; and WHEREAS, In Cupertino there are 14 foster families, and in Santa Clara County there are 526 foster families; and WHEREAS, The healthy growth and development of our youth is important because they will determine the future direction of our community; and WHEREAS, Foster families open their homes and hearts to children whose families are in crisis, and thus play a vital role in helping children and families heal, reconnect, and launch children into successful adulthood; and WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino supports the efforts of foster families who dedicate their time to children both in and leaving foster care. THEREFORE, I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council do hereby proclaim the month of May in the City of Cupertino as National Foster Care Awareness Month and thank the families who embrace the responsibility of providing a home and family to children in need. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Cupertino to be affixed this Tuesday, May 6, 2025. ____________________________ The Honorable Liang Chao Mayor, City of Cupertino 16 CC 05-06-2025 16 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 24-13589 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 5. Subject: Approval of April 15, 2025 City Council minutes Approve the April 15, 2025 City Council minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™17 CC 05-06-2025 17 of 554 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 15, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING At 6:02 p.m., Mayor Liang Chao called the Special City Council Meeting to order in the City Hall Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen, Sheila Mohan, and Ray Wang. Absent: None. CLOSED SESSION In open session prior to closed session, Mayor Chao opened the public comment period regarding the items on the agenda. The following members of the public requested to speak. Helena Cohen Mayor Chao closed the public comment period. 1. Subject: Conference with legal counsel-anticipated litigation; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(c) and 54956.9(e)(1): (1 case) Council met with legal counsel on the anticipated litigation. 2. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9: Yes In My Back Yard; Chunhua Tang; and California Housing Defense Fund v. City of Cupertino; Community Development Department of the City of Cupertino (25CV462924) Council met with legal counsel on the existing litigation. 3. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Government 18 CC 05-06-2025 18 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 2 Code § 54956.9: Lixin (Leon) Chen; California Housing Defense Fund; and Yes in My Backyard v. City of Cupertino; City of Cupertino Community Development Department and City of Cupertino Planning Commission (25CV462857) Council met with legal counsel on the existing litigation. At 6:36 p.m., Mayor Chao recessed the meeting. OPEN SESSION At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Chao reconvened the Special City Council Meeting in open session and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue and via teleconference. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen, Sheila Mohan, and Ray Wang. Absent: None. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Floy Andrews conducted the open session report regarding the closed session held at 6:00 p.m. There was no reportable action. PRESENTATIONS 4. Subject: Presentation by Santa Clara County Fire Department Assistant Chief Hector Estrada on the Updated Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Recommended Action: Receive presentation by Santa Clara County Fire Department Assistant Chief Hector Estrada on the Updated Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Written communications for this item included a presentation. Council received the presentation by Santa Clara County Fire Department Assistant Chief Hector Estrada on the Updated Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. CEREMONIAL ITEMS 5. Subject: Present proclamation honoring the life and legacy of Ty Bloomquist, a 19 CC 05-06-2025 19 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 3 dedicated employee of the City of Cupertino, who passed away on March 28, 2025 Recommended Action: Present proclamation honoring the life and legacy of Ty Bloomquist, a dedicated employee of the City of Cupertino, who passed away on March 28, 2025 Ty Bloomquist’s wife, Renee, made comments and received the proclamation. Mayor Chao introduced the proclamation honoring the life and legacy of Ty Bloomquist, a dedicated employee of the City of Cupertino, who passed away on March 28, 2025 and Director of Public Works Chad Mosely presented the proclamation. 6. Subject: Present a proclamation and recognize Cupertino's affiliated volunteer emergency response teams during Volunteer Week, April 20-26, 2025, for their outstanding contributions and dedicated service to the Cupertino community Recommended Action: Present a proclamation and recognize the contributions of CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) neighborhood responders and organizations for Citizen Corps Emergency Response, CARES (Cupertino Amateur Radio Emergency Services) for radio communications, and MRC (Medical Reserve Corps) for medical support to the City during emergencies, as part of Volunteer Week, April 20-26, 2025 Fari Aberg, Jim Oberhofer, and Alberto Boleda, representing Cupertino’s Citizen Corps, received the proclamation. Mayor Chao presented the proclamation recognizing the contributions of CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) neighborhood responders and organizations for Citizen Corps Emergency Response, CARES (Cupertino Amateur Radio Emergency Services) for radio communications, and MRC (Medical Reserve Corps) for medical support to the City during emergencies, as part of Volunteer Week, April 20-26, 2025. 7. Subject: Receive presentation from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and present proclamation recognizing its 100 years of conservation and community Recommended Action: Receive presentation from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and present proclamation recognizing its 100 years of conservation and community Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate, and Matthew Dodder, Executive Director, with Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance gave a verbal presentation and received the proclamation. Council received the presentation from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Mayor Chao presented the proclamation recognizing its 100 years of conservation and 20 CC 05-06-2025 20 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 4 community. 8. Subject: Receive presentation from Rolling Hills 4-H Club and present proclamation recognizing its contributions to youth leadership development and service to the Cupertino community Recommended Action: Receive presentation from Rolling Hills 4-H Club and present proclamation recognizing its contributions to youth leadership development and service to the Cupertino community Written communications for this item included a presentation. Kai Wu and Audrey Papasin gave a presentation on behalf of Rolling Hills 4-H Club of Cupertino. Council received the presentation from Rolling Hills 4 -H Club and Mayor Chao presented the proclamation recognizing its contributions to youth leadership development and service to the Cupertino community POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY – None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Written communications for this item included emails to the Council. The following members of the public spoke: Rhoda Fry discussed two City lawsuits and the Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s purchase of McClellan Terrace. Devendar discussed the Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s purchase of McClellan Terrace. Abhesi discussed the Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s purchase of McClellan Terrace. Stephen Shei discussed community engagement and cultural understanding. Peggy Griffin discussed the policies for written communications and commission hybrid meetings, and state housing legislation. Jennifer Griffin discussed various housing bills and student housing. 21 CC 05-06-2025 21 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 5 Ranjan Desai discussed the Mary Avenue Villas project. Planning Commissioner San R (representing self) discussed the agenda setting process, converting rental housing to student housing , and grant funded projects. Rathi Kartheek discussed the Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s purchase of McClellan Terrace. Venkatesan Ranganathan discussed the Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s purchase of McClellan Terrace and the Sound Wall separating N. Portal from The Rise project. David Y discussed the Evulich Court development and CAL FIRE’s updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. Chao requested an informational memorandum on reactivating hybrid-format commission meetings, including potential costs and fiscal impacts. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 9-12) Councilmember Wang removed Item 12 from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public comment period. MOTION: Wang moved and Moore seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar except as indicated; and to reorder the agenda to move Item 12 before the Action Calendar. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 9. Subject: Approval of April 2, 2025 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the April 2, 2025 City Council minutes 10. Subject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending March 14, 2025 and March 28, 2025 Recommended Action: A. Adopt Resolution No. 25-023 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending March 14, 2025; and B. Adopt Resolution No. 25-024 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending March 28, 2025 Written communications for this item included a supplemental report with staff responses 22 CC 05-06-2025 22 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 6 to councilmember questions and emails to Council. 11. Subject: Second reading and enactment of an ordinance to make amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 2 to add Chapter 2.96 and codify the Economic Development Committee Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 25-2269: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Title 2, Chapter 2.96: Economic Development Committee" PUBLIC HEARINGS – None ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR As noted under the Consent Calendar, this item was moved before the Action Calendar. 12. Subject: Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF), General Fund Human Services Grant (HSG), Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), and County funding allocations. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute the FY 2025-26 CDBG, BMR AHF, General Fund HSG, PLHA, and County funding agreements. Written communications for this item included emails to Council. This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Community Development Director Ben Fu and Senior Housing Planner Nicky Vu reviewed the staff report. Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following members of the public spoke. Eric McKinlay Nader Vahdat Gia Pham, representing Housing Choices Jennifer Lucas, representing State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) Janet and Cindy Van Zoeren, representing Housing Choices Planning Commissioner Steven Scharf (representing self) Stephen Quan Ranjan Desai Sujatha Venkatraman, representing West Valley Community Services 23 CC 05-06-2025 23 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 7 Georgia Bacil, representing Senior Adults Legal Assistance Rathi Kartheek Lisa Mayor Chao opened the public comment period. Councilmembers asked questions and made comments. MOTION: Chao moved and Wang seconded to approve the recommended action, as modified, to authorize the City Manager to execute the FY 2025 -26 CDBG, BMR AHF, General Fund HSG, PLHA, and County funding agreements, and allocate in the same way from the BMR fund, $1.9 million for Charities Housing and $1.08 million for Eden Housing; with a modification that Council will consider allocating an extra $1 million from the remaining $1.8 million BMR fund to Charities Housing, on the condition that they explore on potential ways to increase the parking stalls on their side of the project. Council did not vote on this motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Moore moved and Fruen seconded to approve the recommended action, as modified, to authorize the City Manager to execute the FY 2025-26 CDBG, BMR AHF, General Fund HSG, PLHA, and County funding agreements; with a modification that $3 million of the Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) be committed to the Charities Housing - Mary Avenue Project and $1,083,200 be allocated to the Eden Housing - Wolf Road Project, and that a commensurate amount of funding ($1,083,200) is to be reallocated from the General Fund to the BMR AHF fund to accommodate the modified funding increase. The substitute motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and. Noes: Wang. Abstain: None. Absent: None. At 9:16 p.m., Mayor Chao recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 9:23 p.m. with all Councilmembers present. ACTION CALENDAR 13. Subject: Direct Staff on Commission Review of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Recommended Action: Direct staff to present the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study to either the Planning Commission or the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission for review and input. Written communications for this item included a supplemental report with staff responses to councilmember questions, Attachment B - Resolution of Support of SC Corridor Vision 24 CC 05-06-2025 24 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 8 Study, and emails to Council. Public Works Director Chad Mosley reviewed the staff report. Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following members of the public spoke. Harry Neil Jennifer Griffin Beck Poltronetti Planning Commissioner Steven Scharf (representing self) Peggy Griffin Planning Commissioner Seema Lindskog (representing self) Planning Commissioner San R (representing self) Planning Commissioner Tracy K (representing self) Lisa Michael Wang Mayor Chao closed the public comment period. MOTION: Moore moved and Wang seconded to direct staff to present the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study for review and input to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, as already scheduled, and to the Planning Commission. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 14. Subject: Review future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers Recommended Action: 1. Review the future agenda items list and adopt the staff recommendations for items 1-13 2. Provide direction for items 14-18 Written communications for this item included a supplemental report with staff responses to councilmember questions, Updated Attachment A - February 2025 Future Agenda Items List, Updated Attachment B - April 2025 Future Agenda Items List 20 Items, Attachment C - Updated Future Agenda Items, and emails to the Council. Deputy City Manager Tina Kapoor reviewed the staff report. Councilmembers asked questions and made comments. Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke. 25 CC 05-06-2025 25 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 9 Jennifer Griffin Peggy Griffin Mayor Chao closed the public comment period. MOTION: Chao moved and Wang seconded to agendize Item 18 as soon as possible to consider the Finch property for potential purchase or other form of partnership with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. MOTION: Chao moved and Wang seconded to continue review future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers to the next City Council meeting. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT At 10:39 p.m., Mayor Chao adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting, per rule. There was no Council discussion on the remaining agenda items. CITY MANAGER REPORT The Council did not hear this item. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – CONTINUED - None COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS 15. Subject: Councilmember Reports Councilmembers reported on their various committees and events as provided in the published agenda. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The Council did not hear this item. As noted under Oral Communications, Chao requested an informational memorandum on reactivating hybrid-format commission meetings, including potential costs and fiscal impacts. 26 CC 05-06-2025 26 of 554 City Council Minutes April 15, 2025 Page 10 16. Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report A tentative council meeting agenda calendar was provided in the published agenda. Minutes prepared by: __________________________ Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk 27 CC 05-06-2025 27 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13863 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 6. Subject:Approval of Updated Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (IAP) Approve the Updated Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (IAP) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™28 CC 05-06-2025 28 of 554 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Updated Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (IAP) Recommended Action Approve the Updated Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (IAP) Background On March 4, 2025, the Draft Budget Format Implementation Plan (IAP) was presented to the City Council. This plan included 32 recommendations that were prioritized 1-3, with 1 being the highest priority. At this meeting the City Council also recommended the following edits to the draft IAP and staff committed to bringing back an updated IAP before budget adoption.  Item 12, Remove the full financial policies to retain in an appendix with the budget and any revision dates  Item 15, Review the architecture and links in OpenGov to ensure accuracy  Item 18, Eliminate the program budget information in the departmental sections (pages 23 to 29) – Hold off on this for a while  Capital Improvement Program (CIP) item - set as a priority one, if possible  Quarterly tracking of the CIP priorities - set as a priority two instead of priority three  Item 26, Special Projects Policy - set as a priority one instead of a priority three  Conduct a study session to review the Performance Measures Updates in Q1 All recommended changes have been included, and the updated IAP is being presented for City Council’s approval. The updated IAP was also presented to the Audit Committee on April 28, 2025. The committee received the report and recommended forwarding it to City Council for approval. Implementation dates align with priorities as follows: 29 CC 05-06-2025 29 of 554 Priority 1 – FY26 Proposed Budget Priority 2 – FY27 Proposed Budget Priority 3 – FY27 or FY28 Proposed Budget Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options The recommended action is to approve the updated Budget IAP and begin implementation. This will provide City Council and residents with expectations of when changes to budget format will be completed. “Based on the findings outlined above, staff recommends City Council approve the updated Budget Format Implementation Action Plan. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact. City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description None. Council Goal: None. California Environmental Quality Act No California Environmental Quality Act impact. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Toni Oasay-Anderson, Acting Budget Manager Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Floy Andrews, City Attorney (As needed) Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A – Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (Redline) B – Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (Clean) 30 CC 05-06-2025 30 of 554                   City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Draft Updated Implementation Action Plan    March April 2025 31 CC 05-06-2025 31 of 554   Making the Most of the Draft Implementation Action Plan   Baker Tilly has developed this draft Implementation Action Plan to assist the City of Cupertino with the phasing and scheduling of 33 recommendations in the project report. That report sets forth the analysis leading to each recommendation. The work involved in implementing the recommendations will need to be integrated into the other work of the departments tasked with their completion, along with appropriate assignments of responsibility and with identification of specific planned completion dates. The draft Action Plan begins that process with guidance about a recommended priority assignment. Priority 1 recommendations are those that we believe are the most important to accomplish without delay or are easy to accomplish. Priority 2 recommendations have less importance in the near term or have an added element of complication to complete or require a significant amount of resources (perhaps internal and external) to assist with completion. Priority 3 recommendations are the least urgent to complete, either due to span of control or complexity Department . We suggest that you use this document to prepare a final Action Plan for the City of Cupertino. In doing so, the management team will need to identify specific target dates for completing implementation activities associated with each recommendation. Additionally, you may want to modify the described activities for implementing an individual recommendation based on internal knowledge of what will be required for completion or adjust the assignment of responsibility based on pending or future workload or other considerations. Where a draft task calls for an event to occur “regularly” or with a preset frequency (e.g., quarterly, monthly) you’ll want to ensure that your implementing procedure or policy is written to accomplish that objective. Prudent implementation of most recommendations will require “circling back” after the work of implementation has begun to fine-tune the work or the milestones based on experience. This step is not explicitly called out for each recommendation; however, assessing the progress of implementation (via “circling back”) should be a part of your normal management system. We would be happy to set up a consultation with you to support the conversion of this draft into the final Action Plan you can use to manage implementation. To turn this draft into the Action Plan that is used to manage implementation, replace the column titled “Priority” with actual completion dates. Target dates can be specific (e.g., September 1) or by month or quarter (e.g., 3Q 2025), as appropriate to the individual action. All of the work to implement the strategies is in addition to the normal work of involved City staff. Baker Tilly has staff associates who are experienced in implementing many of the actions identified in this draft Action Plan. We welcome the opportunity to assist you in doing so, and in any case, we remain available to consult with you in whatever way we can be helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact Carol Jacobs at 949-809-5588 or Steve Toler at 408-385-3414 if we can be of assistance. Steve Toler can be reached by email at Steve.Toler@bakertilly.com. The discipline of project planning is basic to the successful execution of the work ahead. We hope that you find the draft Implementation Action Plan useful in that regard. 32 CC 05-06-2025 32 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Draft Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   1 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments 1 Ensure the document includes a title page, improved table of contents,  consistent layout and orientation.   Review the budget document for consistent formatting including  font, font size, page orientation   Ensure title page and table of contents are properly formatted   1    Admin Services FY26 Implementation  2  Isolate the Budget Message as a standalone section.  Move the Strategic Goals Budget Message section to the front of  the document in the Introduction Section  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  3  Incorporate the City’s Mission in the Budget Guide section with the  Strategic Goals subsection and move them to the Introduction section  after the City’s organization chart.   Condense the City’s Mission in the Budget Guide section areas of  the Budget Message   Move to the introduction section   2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  4  Eliminate the Notable Accomplishments and New Initiatives sections by  condensing its content into a bulleted one or two sentence description  for each accomplishment and relocate each relevant accomplishment to  the respective Department section.   Condense Notable Accomplishments and New Initiatives sections  into small bulleted or narrative list by Department   Move each bulleted description into relevant Department  section   Remove Notable Accomplishments and New Initiatives sections  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  5  Summarize high‐level notable accomplishments and new initiatives  within the City Manager’s Budget Message   Summarize high‐level notable accomplishments and new  initiatives into a small paragraph   Put this paragraph in the City Manager’s Budget Message  2 Admin Services/  City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation  6 Elevate the Budget Overview subsection as its own section in the budget  document.   Add the existing Budget Overview subsection as it’s own new  section   Include the following subsections:  o Budget Roadmap,  o Changes to the Budget and Policies,  o Budget by Fund,  o Service‐Level Reductions,  o Special Projects,  o Current Economic Update,  o Key Budget Assumptions, and  o Ongoing Challenges  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation    1Priority 1: Important to accomplish without delay and/or easy to accomplish.  Priority 2: Second tier of importance to accomplish and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete.  Priority 3: Least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set‐up or to execute.   2To establish clear accountability there should be a single manager assigned responsibility for completing implementation of each recommendation. Where more than one manager is identified in this column, responsibility should be clarified  when the Final Action Plan is prepared.   33 CC 05-06-2025 33 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Draft Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   2 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments 7  Report Department reductions at the summary level and refer to the  Department section for further detail.   Use the newly created Budget Overview section in  Recommendation #6 to create a four page narrative   Refer to the individual Department sections for further detail   2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  8  Complete and publish the FY 2024‐25 Budget at a Glance document to  summarize the budget for the casual user.   Publish the above four page narrative from Recommendation #7  as a separate City’s Budget at a Glance document  2 Admin Services April 2025  9  Move the Mission Statement to the strategic goals section.  Move the Mission Statement  from the Budget Guide section to  the Strategic SGoals section.  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  10  Move the Elements of the Budget Document, Glossary of Budget  Terminology, Commonly Used Acronyms, and  Revenues/Expenditures/Fund Balance Table to the Appendix.   Move the following Elements of the Budget Document to the  appendix  o Glossary of Budget Terminology  o Commonly Used Acronyms  o Revenues/Expenditures/Fund Balance Table  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  11  Eliminate the City Profile, Education, Programs and Applications,  Community and Recreation Services and Things to Do and See  subsections of the Community Profile section from the budget  document.   Remove the following subsections of the Community Profile  section  o City Profile  o Education  o Programs and Applications  o Community and Recreation Services  o Things to Do and See  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  12  Update all policies to provide a summary of the policy and include a link  to the official policy on the City’s website.   Remove the full financial policies from the budget document to  retain in an appendix with the budget and any revision dates   Include a summary of the relevant financial policies and a link to  the full policy on the City’s website  3 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  13  Eliminate the Flow of Funds Chart and replace it with a narrative  description of how taxes are used to fund City services within the Budget  Overview section of the budget.   Eliminate the Flow of Funds Chart in the All Funds Financial  Schedule section    Include a narrative of how taxes are used to fund City services  within the Budget Overview section  3 Admin Services FY28 Implementation  14 Revise the General Fund Contribution Schedule subsection to include a  brief narrative of General Funds resources that are being contributed to  other funds, refer to the General Fund Transfers subsection, and  eliminate the existing table.   Develop a draft narrative summary for City Manager’s Office  review and feedback   Eliminate the existing table of the General Fund Contribution  Schedule in the General Fund Financial Schedules sections   Refer to the General Fund Transfers subsection in the narrative   2 Admin Services FY27 Implementation  34 CC 05-06-2025 34 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Draft Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   3 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments  Publish the updated section for incorporation into the annual  budget document  15  Refer the reader to the Department section or OpenGov for further  detail.   Review architecture and links in OpenGov to ensure accuracy  and usability of financial schedules that provide the same or  similar information as in the current budget document   Make revisions to OpenGov as required   Modify text references in the General Fund Financial Schedules  section in each department to direct readers to the department  sections, appendix and/or OpenGov   Condense Revenues section detail    Add reference to Open Gov to show further detail   2 Admin Services FY27 Implementation  16  Condense the General Fund Revenues to provide an overview of the key  revenue sources, and include the more detailed descriptions and  analysis in the General Fund Forecast subsection.   Develop a revised draft of a condensed General Funds revenue  section (e.g., start with an outline, then complete a draft based  on prior budget)   Move the more detailed descriptions and analysis in the General  Fund Forecast subsection   Ensure consistency in formatting and align structure across both  sections for clarity   Publish the updated section as part of the draft budget  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  17  Review each Department section to include the following components:  1) Department description; 2) Organizational chart (by division/program  including number of assigned personnel FTE equivalents); 3) Personnel  summary (subtotals by position); 4) Key priorities, with emphasis on how  they achieve the citywide strategic plan/priorities; 5) Performance  measures with a reference to key departmental priorities and citywide  strategic plan/priorities; and 6) Revenue and Expenditure summary by  division/program and by expenditure type (personnel costs, materials  and services, capital outlay, etc.).   Review each Department section to ensure there is consistency  in including the following components:  o Department description  o Organizational chart   o Personnel summary   o Key priorities  o Performance measures   o Revenue and Expenditure summary  3 Admin Services FY27 Implementation  18  Eliminate the program budget information in the Department sections  and refer the user to OpenGov to obtain further detail.     Eliminate the program budget information in the departmental  sections    Add reference to Open Gov for the reader to obtain further  detail at the program budget level  2 Admin Services Per Council hold off on this for  awhile.  FY27 Implementation  35 CC 05-06-2025 35 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Draft Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   4 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments 19  Develop a minimum five‐year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and  incorporate the CIP plan into the budget document.   Develop the Capital Improvement Plan should be created and  include the following elements:  o CIP Overview  o CIP Process that explains the definition of a  project and the planning process  o Project descriptions  o Financial Summary by Year  o Funding Availability    The CIP should be included as part of the annual budget with  similar timelines so that the recommended operating and capital  budgets are published within the budget schedule.  21 Public Works/  Admin Services  FY26 Implementation  20  Affirm primary responsibility and lead role of the development of the  CIP Plan to Public Works as a shared responsibility and collaboration  with other departments.   Assign the lead role of development of the CIP to the Public  Works Department   Conduct cross‐departmental CIP meetings to ensure input is  received     Develop a department coordination framework that defines  roles, responsibility for input and collaboration   Discuss and disseminate the framework with departments.   Conduct periodic check‐ins on CIP plan development to include  the City Manager, and representatives from Public Works and  Administrative Services  1 City Manager’s  Office, delegated  to Public Works  FY26 Implementation, internal  Standard Operating Procedure  (SOP)  21  Assign compilation and publication of the CIP Plan section of the budget  document to the Administrative Services Department’s Budget division.   Assign the lead role of compilation and publication of the CIP to  the Admin Services Department   Standardize CIP formatting and structure to ensure consistency  in CIP descriptions, budget projections and reporting   Establish a review and submission timelines for the draft and  final CIP version in the context of the broader budget process   Collaborate with Public Works to inform final development of  the finalized CIP plan   Incorporate the capital budget in the recommended budget  document.  1 City Manager’s  Office, delegated  to Admin Services   FY26 Implementation  22  Complete the FY 2024‐25 Capital Budget and issue as Volume 2 of the  current adopted budget.   Complete the FY 2024‐25 Capital Budget already in progress  (performed by Public Works)  1 Public Works/  Admin Services  Completed April 2025  36 CC 05-06-2025 36 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Draft Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   5 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments  Issue the Capital Budget as Volume 2 of the current adopted  budget.  23  Provide clear quarterly tracking of CIP priorities, progress, and  alignment with Council work programs.   Develop a quarterly reporting framework to define reporting  element such as progress tracking, estimated time of  construction and completion, and tracking against budget   Establish a reporting calendar to set quarterly review deadlines  on City Council agendas   Implement the CIP progress reporting   Check‐in with City Council and department leaders to evaluate  CIP progress reporting and opportunities to improve it  32 City Manager’s  Office, delegated  to Public Works  FY27 Implementation  24  Create a detailed appendix for fund transfers, enterprise funds, and  grant funding usage.   Create a framework to report the following:   o Fund transfers  o Enterprise funds  o Grant funding   Compile the fund transfer and grant data to document all  sources and uses of funds   Publish the developed report(s)  2 Admin Services FY27 Implementation  25  Ensure all appropriated funds and consulting services are tracked and  reported against original purposes.   Review current trancking mechanisms and implement any  necessary changes based on feedback received from City  Councilmembers regarding past reports   Review the current expense report that shows budget and actual  expenditures for all appropriated funds   Create a report in OpenGov that highlights the consulting  services expenses compared to the original budget.   Keep clear documentation of all consulting services budgets.  3 Admin Services FY28 Implementation  26 Develop and implement a Special Projects policy to address such issues  as definitions, approval authorities, timelines, projects spanning multiple  fiscal years, budget carryovers for projects extending into a subsequent  fiscal year, and periodic reporting timelines and form.   Develop a special projects policy that addresses:  o Definition of special projects  o Form of reporting  o Frequency of reporting   o Follow‐up on items and direction from City  Council   31 City Manager’s  Office  Completed April 2025  37 CC 05-06-2025 37 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Draft Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   6 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments 27 Review the City’s annual budget resolution and/or expenditure and  budget policies to ensure they align with City Council authorities  provided to the City Manager or designee in managing the annual  budget, including use of contracted and/or consulting services to  achieve the City’s annual service delivery goals expressed in the adopted  budget.   Review the City’s annual budget resolution and/or expenditure  and budget policies to ensure the following:  o Authorities provided to the City Manager  o Use of contracted or consulting services    Make any changes or updates as needed  1 City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation  28  Review the City’s current budget community engagement strategy with  the City Council to ensure it is successfully meeting the needs for  identifying community priorities and to inform the community about  how City services are funded.   Present the City’s current budget community engagement  strategy to the City Council   Solicit feedback on additional community engagement strategies   Make any changes or updates as needed  1 City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation  29 Review educational content on the budget’s role as a financial planning  tool and document in light of any changes to the  engagement strategy  using easy‐to‐understand content and graphics.   Review the proposed changes to the community engagement  strategies   Update educational content and engagement strategy with easy‐ to‐understand content and graphics based on proposed changes  1 Admin Services/  City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation  30  Leverage tools like OpenGov to create interactive, department‐focused  summaries for each user type including the community, council and  staff.   Review the current OpenGov design and layout for departments  and solicit feedback for improvements   Move the current year so the newest information is listed first on  the main page   Develop content based on the needs of the community and  council    Include links in the budget document to OpenGov to create  more tailored content   1 Admin Services FY27 Implementation, will  need more time to develop  and implement this  recommendation  31  Develop a citywide strategic plan that includes a review of the core  values, mission and vision by the City Council to form the appropriate  strategic goals and priorities for the organization and its operating  departments.   Determine if the strategic plan will be done with assistance from  consultants or in house   Work with City Council to create a city‐wide strategic plan  according to the following framework  o Core Values  o Mission   o Vision  o Organizational Goals  o Organizational Strategies  o Strategic Priorities  o Personal Priorities   1 City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation, a FY26  Proposed Budget request will  be made for dollars to  complete a strategic plan.  38 CC 05-06-2025 38 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Draft Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   7 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments  Incorporate strategic plan into planning for the budget document  and performance measures   32  Establish performance standards for each performance measure and  reevaluate at least biennially.   Review Baker Tilly’s suggested performance measures by  Department   Obtain City Council approval on the set of performance  measures to be implemented, informed by the Baker Tilly report  and any subsequent creation of a citywide strategic plan   Identify roles and responsibilities within each department to  identify the metrics to be tracked, gather the data, and develop  the reports     Implement a tracking mechanism by developing a reporting  structure to monitor compliance and effectiveness (e.g.,  quarterly, semi‐annually)   Create a process for reviewing performance and updating  performance measures with the City Council periodically (semi‐ annually) and as part of the annual budget process  1 City Manger’s  Office, delegated  to each  department  FY26/FY27 Implementation  this will follow the strategic  plan to ensure alignment with  City Council vision and  priorities  33 Conduct a study session to review the Performance Measures update in  Q1   Review updated performance measures    Bring to City council as a study session   1 City Manger’s  Office, delegated  to each  department  FY26/FY27 Implementation,  this will follow the strategic  plan to ensure alignment with  City Council vision and  priorities.    39 CC 05-06-2025 39 of 554                   City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Updated Implementation Action Plan    April 2025 40 CC 05-06-2025 40 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   1 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments 1 Ensure the document includes a title page, improved table of contents,  consistent layout and orientation.   Review the budget document for consistent formatting including  font, font size, page orientation   Ensure title page and table of contents are properly formatted   1    Admin Services FY26 Implementation  2  Isolate the Budget Message as a standalone section.  Move the Strategic Goals Budget Message section to the front of  the document in the Introduction Section  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  3  Incorporate the City’s Mission in the Budget Guide section with the  Strategic Goals subsection and move them to the Introduction section  after the City’s organization chart.   Condense the City’s Mission in the Budget Guide section areas of  the Budget Message   Move to the introduction section   2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  4  Eliminate the Notable Accomplishments and New Initiatives sections by  condensing its content into a bulleted one or two sentence description  for each accomplishment and relocate each relevant accomplishment to  the respective Department section.   Condense Notable Accomplishments and New Initiatives sections  into small bulleted or narrative list by Department   Move each bulleted description into relevant Department  section   Remove Notable Accomplishments and New Initiatives sections  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  5  Summarize high‐level notable accomplishments and new initiatives  within the City Manager’s Budget Message   Summarize high‐level notable accomplishments and new  initiatives into a small paragraph   Put this paragraph in the City Manager’s Budget Message  2 Admin Services/  City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation  6 Elevate the Budget Overview subsection as its own section in the budget  document.   Add the existing Budget Overview subsection as it’s own new  section   Include the following subsections:  o Budget Roadmap,  o Changes to the Budget and Policies,  o Budget by Fund,  o Service‐Level Reductions,  o Special Projects,  o Current Economic Update,  o Key Budget Assumptions, and  o Ongoing Challenges  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation    1Priority 1: Important to accomplish without delay and/or easy to accomplish.  Priority 2: Second tier of importance to accomplish and/or may involve some complexity or time to complete.  Priority 3: Least urgent to complete and/or may take longer to set‐up or to execute.   2To establish clear accountability there should be a single manager assigned responsibility for completing implementation of each recommendation. Where more than one manager is identified in this column, responsibility should be clarified  when the Final Action Plan is prepared.   41 CC 05-06-2025 41 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   2 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments 7  Report Department reductions at the summary level and refer to the  Department section for further detail.   Use the newly created Budget Overview section in  Recommendation #6 to create a four page narrative   Refer to the individual Department sections for further detail   2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  8  Complete and publish the FY 2024‐25 Budget at a Glance document to  summarize the budget for the casual user.   Publish the above four page narrative from Recommendation #7  as a separate City’s Budget at a Glance document  2 Admin Services April 2025  9  Move the Mission Statement to the strategic goals section.  Move the Mission Statement  from the Budget Guide section to  the Strategic Goals section.  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  10  Move the Elements of the Budget Document, Glossary of Budget  Terminology, Commonly Used Acronyms, and  Revenues/Expenditures/Fund Balance Table to the Appendix.   Move the following Elements of the Budget Document to the  appendix  o Glossary of Budget Terminology  o Commonly Used Acronyms  o Revenues/Expenditures/Fund Balance Table  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  11  Eliminate the City Profile, Education, Programs and Applications,  Community and Recreation Services and Things to Do and See  subsections of the Community Profile section from the budget  document.   Remove the following subsections of the Community Profile  section  o City Profile  o Education  o Programs and Applications  o Community and Recreation Services  o Things to Do and See  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  12  Update all policies to provide a summary of the policy and include a link  to the official policy on the City’s website.   Remove the full financial policies from the budget document to  retain in an appendix with the budget and any revision dates   Include a summary of the relevant financial policies and a link to  the full policy on the City’s website  3 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  13  Eliminate the Flow of Funds Chart and replace it with a narrative  description of how taxes are used to fund City services within the Budget  Overview section of the budget.   Eliminate the Flow of Funds Chart in the All Funds Financial  Schedule section    Include a narrative of how taxes are used to fund City services  within the Budget Overview section  3 Admin Services FY28 Implementation  14 Revise the General Fund Contribution Schedule subsection to include a  brief narrative of General Funds resources that are being contributed to  other funds, refer to the General Fund Transfers subsection, and  eliminate the existing table.   Develop a draft narrative summary for City Manager’s Office  review and feedback   Eliminate the existing table of the General Fund Contribution  Schedule in the General Fund Financial Schedules sections   Refer to the General Fund Transfers subsection in the narrative   2 Admin Services FY27 Implementation  42 CC 05-06-2025 42 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   3 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments  Publish the updated section for incorporation into the annual  budget document  15  Refer the reader to the Department section or OpenGov for further  detail.   Review architecture and links in OpenGov to ensure accuracy  and usability of financial schedules that provide the same or  similar information as in the current budget document   Make revisions to OpenGov as required   Modify text references in the General Fund Financial Schedules  section in each department to direct readers to the department  sections, appendix and/or OpenGov   Condense Revenues section detail    Add reference to Open Gov to show further detail   2 Admin Services FY27 Implementation  16  Condense the General Fund Revenues to provide an overview of the key  revenue sources, and include the more detailed descriptions and  analysis in the General Fund Forecast subsection.   Develop a revised draft of a condensed General Funds revenue  section (e.g., start with an outline, then complete a draft based  on prior budget)   Move the more detailed descriptions and analysis in the General  Fund Forecast subsection   Ensure consistency in formatting and align structure across both  sections for clarity   Publish the updated section as part of the draft budget  2 Admin Services FY26 Implementation  17  Review each Department section to include the following components:  1) Department description; 2) Organizational chart (by division/program  including number of assigned personnel FTE equivalents); 3) Personnel  summary (subtotals by position); 4) Key priorities, with emphasis on how  they achieve the citywide strategic plan/priorities; 5) Performance  measures with a reference to key departmental priorities and citywide  strategic plan/priorities; and 6) Revenue and Expenditure summary by  division/program and by expenditure type (personnel costs, materials  and services, capital outlay, etc.).   Review each Department section to ensure there is consistency  in including the following components:  o Department description  o Organizational chart   o Personnel summary   o Key priorities  o Performance measures   o Revenue and Expenditure summary  3 Admin Services FY27 Implementation  18  Eliminate the program budget information in the Department sections  and refer the user to OpenGov to obtain further detail.     Eliminate the program budget information in the departmental  sections    Add reference to Open Gov for the reader to obtain further  detail at the program budget level  2 Admin Services Per Council hold off on this for  awhile.  FY27 Implementation  43 CC 05-06-2025 43 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   4 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments 19  Develop a minimum five‐year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and  incorporate the CIP plan into the budget document.   Develop the Capital Improvement Plan should be created and  include the following elements:  o CIP Overview  o CIP Process that explains the definition of a  project and the planning process  o Project descriptions  o Financial Summary by Year  o Funding Availability    The CIP should be included as part of the annual budget with  similar timelines so that the recommended operating and capital  budgets are published within the budget schedule.  1 Public Works/  Admin Services  FY26 Implementation  20  Affirm primary responsibility and lead role of the development of the  CIP Plan to Public Works as a shared responsibility and collaboration  with other departments.   Assign the lead role of development of the CIP to the Public  Works Department   Conduct cross‐departmental CIP meetings to ensure input is  received     Develop a department coordination framework that defines  roles, responsibility for input and collaboration   Discuss and disseminate the framework with departments.   Conduct periodic check‐ins on CIP plan development to include  the City Manager, and representatives from Public Works and  Administrative Services  1 City Manager’s  Office, delegated  to Public Works  FY26 Implementation, internal  Standard Operating Procedure  (SOP)  21  Assign compilation and publication of the CIP Plan section of the budget  document to the Administrative Services Department’s Budget division.   Assign the lead role of compilation and publication of the CIP to  the Admin Services Department   Standardize CIP formatting and structure to ensure consistency  in CIP descriptions, budget projections and reporting   Establish a review and submission timelines for the draft and  final CIP version in the context of the broader budget process   Collaborate with Public Works to inform final development of  the finalized CIP plan   Incorporate the capital budget in the recommended budget  document.  1 City Manager’s  Office, delegated  to Admin Services   FY26 Implementation  22  Complete the FY 2024‐25 Capital Budget and issue as Volume 2 of the  current adopted budget.   Complete the FY 2024‐25 Capital Budget already in progress  (performed by Public Works)  1 Public Works/  Admin Services  Completed April 2025  44 CC 05-06-2025 44 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   5 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments  Issue the Capital Budget as Volume 2 of the current adopted  budget.  23  Provide clear quarterly tracking of CIP priorities, progress, and  alignment with Council work programs.   Develop a quarterly reporting framework to define reporting  element such as progress tracking, estimated time of  construction and completion, and tracking against budget   Establish a reporting calendar to set quarterly review deadlines  on City Council agendas   Implement the CIP progress reporting   Check‐in with City Council and department leaders to evaluate  CIP progress reporting and opportunities to improve it  2 City Manager’s  Office, delegated  to Public Works  FY27 Implementation  24  Create a detailed appendix for fund transfers, enterprise funds, and  grant funding usage.   Create a framework to report the following:   o Fund transfers  o Enterprise funds  o Grant funding   Compile the fund transfer and grant data to document all  sources and uses of funds   Publish the developed report(s)  2 Admin Services FY27 Implementation  25  Ensure all appropriated funds and consulting services are tracked and  reported against original purposes.   Review current trancking mechanisms and implement any  necessary changes based on feedback received from City  Councilmembers regarding past reports   Review the current expense report that shows budget and actual  expenditures for all appropriated funds   Create a report in OpenGov that highlights the consulting  services expenses compared to the original budget.   Keep clear documentation of all consulting services budgets.  3 Admin Services FY28 Implementation  26 Develop and implement a Special Projects policy to address such issues  as definitions, approval authorities, timelines, projects spanning multiple  fiscal years, budget carryovers for projects extending into a subsequent  fiscal year, and periodic reporting timelines and form.   Develop a special projects policy that addresses:  o Definition of special projects  o Form of reporting  o Frequency of reporting   o Follow‐up on items and direction from City  Council   1 City Manager’s  Office  Completed April 2025  45 CC 05-06-2025 45 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   6 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments 27 Review the City’s annual budget resolution and/or expenditure and  budget policies to ensure they align with City Council authorities  provided to the City Manager or designee in managing the annual  budget, including use of contracted and/or consulting services to  achieve the City’s annual service delivery goals expressed in the adopted  budget.   Review the City’s annual budget resolution and/or expenditure  and budget policies to ensure the following:  o Authorities provided to the City Manager  o Use of contracted or consulting services    Make any changes or updates as needed  1 City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation  28  Review the City’s current budget community engagement strategy with  the City Council to ensure it is successfully meeting the needs for  identifying community priorities and to inform the community about  how City services are funded.   Present the City’s current budget community engagement  strategy to the City Council   Solicit feedback on additional community engagement strategies   Make any changes or updates as needed  1 City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation  29 Review educational content on the budget’s role as a financial planning  tool and document in light of any changes to the  engagement strategy  using easy‐to‐understand content and graphics.   Review the proposed changes to the community engagement  strategies   Update educational content and engagement strategy with easy‐ to‐understand content and graphics based on proposed changes  1 Admin Services/  City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation  30  Leverage tools like OpenGov to create interactive, department‐focused  summaries for each user type including the community, council and  staff.   Review the current OpenGov design and layout for departments  and solicit feedback for improvements   Move the current year so the newest information is listed first on  the main page   Develop content based on the needs of the community and  council    Include links in the budget document to OpenGov to create  more tailored content   1 Admin Services FY27 Implementation, will  need more time to develop  and implement this  recommendation  31  Develop a citywide strategic plan that includes a review of the core  values, mission and vision by the City Council to form the appropriate  strategic goals and priorities for the organization and its operating  departments.   Determine if the strategic plan will be done with assistance from  consultants or in house   Work with City Council to create a city‐wide strategic plan  according to the following framework  o Core Values  o Mission   o Vision  o Organizational Goals  o Organizational Strategies  o Strategic Priorities  o Personal Priorities   1 City Manager’s  Office  FY26 Implementation, a FY26  Proposed Budget request will  be made for dollars to  complete a strategic plan.  46 CC 05-06-2025 46 of 554 City of Cupertino – Budget Document Improvements and Performance Measures Updated Implementation Action Plan Baker Tilly   7 Rec No. Recommendation Implementation Steps Priority1 Department Responsible2 Comments  Incorporate strategic plan into planning for the budget document  and performance measures   32  Establish performance standards for each performance measure and  reevaluate at least biennially.   Review Baker Tilly’s suggested performance measures by  Department   Obtain City Council approval on the set of performance  measures to be implemented, informed by the Baker Tilly report  and any subsequent creation of a citywide strategic plan   Identify roles and responsibilities within each department to  identify the metrics to be tracked, gather the data, and develop  the reports     Implement a tracking mechanism by developing a reporting  structure to monitor compliance and effectiveness (e.g.,  quarterly, semi‐annually)   Create a process for reviewing performance and updating  performance measures with the City Council periodically (semi‐ annually) and as part of the annual budget process  1 City Manger’s  Office, delegated  to each  department  FY26/FY27 Implementation  this will follow the strategic  plan to ensure alignment with  City Council vision and  priorities  33 Conduct a study session to review the Performance Measures update in  Q1   Review updated performance measures    Bring to City council as a study session   1 City Manger’s  Office, delegated  to each  department  FY26/FY27 Implementation,  this will follow the strategic  plan to ensure alignment with  City Council vision and  priorities.    47 CC 05-06-2025 47 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13891 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 7. Subject:Approve a Seventh Amendment to the MIG, Inc. design consultant agreement for the All-Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park project for a total not-to-exceed amount of $533,821 Authorize the City Manager to execute a Seventh Amendment to the agreement with MIG, Inc. for Design Professional Services on the All-Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park project (420-99-051, PO# 2022-0326) increasing the contract amount by $21,410, for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $533,821. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™48 CC 05-06-2025 48 of 554 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Approve a Seventh Amendment to the MIG, Inc. design consultant agreement for the All-Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park project for a total not-to-exceed amount of $533,821 Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to execute a Seventh Amendment to the agreement with MIG, Inc. for Design Professional Services on the All-Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park project (420-99-051, PO# 2022-0326) increasing the contract amount by $21,410, for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $533,821. Background The agreement with MIG, Inc. (MIG) for design professional services was awarded in December 2021 for $389,511. Since that time, six amendments to that agreement have been issued, expanding the project scope and time, resulting in the addition of $122,900 to the contract, increasing the total contract amount not-to-exceed to $512,411. The Expenditure Distribution up to the currently proposed contract amendment: Item Description Amount Original Agreement (PO# 2022-0326) Design/Engineering Services. (Council's December 2021 award of this contract included authorization for PW Director to execute changes/contingency up to $77,900 for a total appropriation of $467,411.) $389,511 Amendment #1 Design services to support the addition of the restroom to the scope. $12,000 Amendment #2 Design services to add an art feature and present to Arts & Culture Commission $18,250 Amendment #3 Design Services to find alternative artist, develop the art feature design, and develop bid documents for fabrication. $38,400 Amendment #4 Extending the end date of the agreement. $0 49 CC 05-06-2025 49 of 554 Amendment #5 Design services to assist with building permit processing, including the addition of structural engineering services. $9,250 Amendment #6 Construction Administration, expansion of scope to include restroom, art feature, added site visits. (Council approved in June 2024) $45,000 Total: $512,411 Amendment #7 (this item) Construction Administration additional services, as more site visits and GC coordination are required. $21,410 Amended Total: $533,821 Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options The amount of oversight required to implement the project has increased throughout the construction phase of the project. A number of unforeseen conditions required changes to the scope of the project and increased involvement from MIG’s project team, including irrigation system conditions, adjustments to layout of equipment, and evaluation and implementation of cost reduction measures that required redesign and engineering, such as a change to the accessible sand table. The MIG project team was able to accommodate many of the revisions, but additional site inspections to finalize the project warrant an increase in the total of the agreement. This will be the final amendment to the contract prior to completion of the project. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact. This contract amendment falls within the project’s current budget appropriation. City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description None California Environmental Quality Act No California Environmental Quality Act impact _____________________________________ Prepared by: Susan Michael, CIP Manager Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Amendment 07 MIG agreement for JAIPG 50 CC 05-06-2025 50 of 554 SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 401 BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND MIG, INC FOR ALL-INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND AT JOLLYMAN PARK This Seventh Amendment to Agreement 401 between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and MIG, Inc, a Corporation (“Contractor”) whose address is 2055 Junction Ave, Suite 205, San Jose, CA 95131, and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On December 09, 2021 Agreement 401 (“Agreement”) was entered into by and between City and Contractor for All-Inclusive Playground at Jollyman Park. B. The City and the Contractor entered into a First Amended Agreement (“First Amended Agreement”) effective October 13, 2022; and C. The City and the Contractor entered into a Second Amended Agreement (“Second Amended Agreement”) effective July 14, 2023; and D. The City and the Contractor entered into a Third Amended Agreement (“Third Amended Agreement”) effective September 7, 2023; and E. The City and the Contractor entered into a Fourth Amended Agreement (“Fourth Amended Agreement”) effective April 8, 2024; and F. The City and the Contractor entered into a Fifth Amended Agreement (“Fifth Amended Agreement”) effective May 22, 2024; and G. The City and the Contractor entered into a Sixth Amended Agreement (“Sixth Amended Agreement”) effective August 23, 2024; and H. The Agreement, First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment are collectively referred to as the “Agreement” unless otherwise indicated. I. City and Contractor desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 4.1 Maximum Compensation of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: City will pay Consultant for satisfactory performance of the Service a total amount that will be based upon actual costs but that will be capped so as not to exceed $533,821.00 (“Contract Price”), based on the budget and rates set forth in Exhibit C, Compensation, and attached and incorporated here. The Contract Price includes all expenses and reimbursements and will 51 CC 05-06-2025 51 of 554 remain in place even if Consultant’s actual costs exceed the capped amount. No extra work or payment is permitted in excess of the Contract Price. Exhibits A and A-1 and A-2 and A-3, A- 4, and A-5 of the Agreement are modified to include Exhibit A-6 Additional Services, attached hereto. 2. Paragraph 4.3 Additional Services of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: City has the discretion, but not the obligation, to authorize Additional Services up to an amount not to exceed $144,310.00. Additional Services provided to City’s reasonable satisfaction will be compensated on a lump sum basis or based on time and expenses, in accordance with the Hourly Rates and Reimbursable Expenses Schedules included in Exhibit C. If paid on an hourly basis, Consultant will be compensated for actual costs only of normal business expenses and overhead, with no markup or surcharge. (“Reimbursable Expenses”). Consultant will not be entitled to reimbursement for copying, printing, faxes, telephone charges, employee overtime, or travel to City offices or to the Project site. Exhibits A and A-1 and A-2 and A-3, A-4, and A-5 of the Agreement are modified to include Exhibit A-6 Additional Services, attached hereto. 3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. CITY OF CUPERTINO By Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Date MIG, INC By Title Date 52 CC 05-06-2025 52 of 554 EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION Item PO Number Amount Original Agreement 2022-326 $389,511.00 Amendment 1 $12,000.00 Amendment 2 $18,250.00 Amendment 3 $38,400 Amendment 4 Extend Term to 6/30/2026 0 Amendment 5 $9,250 Amendment 6 $45,000 Amendment 7 $21,410 Total $533,821 53 CC 05-06-2025 53 of 554 October 9, 2024 Revised April 2, 2025 Susan Michael, Capital Projects Programs Manager City of Cupertino, City Hall 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Revised Additional Services #7 Jollyman Park Inclusive Playground (MIG proj. no. 30902) Dear Susan, We are requesting additional services to assist the City with construction observation beyond the scope of work in the original contract. The work has expanded to include revised drawings for a sand play table of a different design and reduced price, along with extended CA services over a longer construction schedule. The following summarizes the MIG team’s request for additional work and fees that are above and beyond the original contract. All other terms in the original contract remain in effect. Requested Add Services: (to be added to Task 10: Construction Observation unless otherwise directed) Extended CA services: meetings, site visits, RFIs, coordination $18,000 Sand table cad revisions, structural review and formal ASI: $3,410 Total Add Service #7 $21,410 Sincerely, Melissa Erikson Principal, Director of Community Design Services MIG EXHIBIT A-6 54 CC 05-06-2025 54 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13892 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 8. Subject:Approve a Fourth Amendment to the Tanko Lighting Master Agreement for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Streetlight Transition Project correcting the maximum compensation amount to $336,172. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Fourth Amendment to the master agreement (#653) with Tanko Lighting for Design Professional Services on the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Streetlight Transition Project (420 -99-258) correcting the maximum compensation amount to $336,172. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™55 CC 05-06-2025 55 of 554 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Approve a Fourth Amendment to the Tanko Lighting Master Agreement for the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Streetlight Transition Project correcting the maximum compensation amount to $336,172. Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to execute a Fourth Amendment to the master agreement (#653) with Tanko Lighting for Design Professional Services on the Light Emitting Diode (LED) Streetlight Transition Project (420-99-258) correcting the maximum compensation amount to $336,172. Background A master agreement was awarded to Tanko Lighting for design professional services on the LED Streetlight Transition Project in January 2023. The master agreement with Tanko Lighting was approved for amendment by City Council in December 2024 to increase the maximum compensation amount, but there was a mathematical error, and this Fourth Amendment corrects that error. The December 3, 2024 staff report and exhibit C-2, attached to the Third Amendment, indicates an addition of $156,914 to the contract, however the Maximum Compensation Amount was incorrect. The amount stated in the Staff Report was $306,914 but should have been $336,172. Amendment #4 corrects the mathematical error and revises the maximum compensation amount to $336,172. ($179,258 + $156,914 = $336,914) To date, there have been three amendments to the Tanko Lighting Master Agreement: Item Execution Date Amount Added Maximum Compensation Amount Original Not-to-Exceed Contract amount (audit existing conditions, develop project scope and specifications) January 10, 2023 - - $175,000 Amendment #1 (extending time) April 22, 2024 $0 $175,000 56 CC 05-06-2025 56 of 554 Amendment #2 (additional services for bid review process) September 6, 2024 $4,258 $179,258 Amendment #3 (construction administration) February 12, 2025 $156,914 $306,914* Amendment #4 (correcting error) TBD $0 $336,172** *Maximum Compensation amount should have been $336,172. **Revised Maximum Compensation Amount to address the previous error. Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options In the December 3, 2024 staff report, the following text was supplied to substantiate the need for the additional services from Tanko Lighting: To ensure that construction work is completed in an orderly manner and in compliance with the project specifications, staff also recommends increasing Tanko Lighting’s contract by $156,914, for a total contract amount not to exceed $306,914, so that Tanko Lighting can perform construction management services for the City on this project. Scope of Services include community outreach, developing an installation schedule, use of a consultant’s computerized mapping system to track installation progress in real time to verify contractor’s data entry is accurate and complete, post construction asset inventory update, and to coordinate utility billing updates upon project completion. If this item is not approved, the City will not be able to contract out Construction Management services and will lose the opportunity to utilize the Consultant’s GIS software to manage and track installation. Due to limited staff resources, this will prohibit or delay project completion. The maximum compensation indicated in the staff report was incorrect. The correct amount is $336,172. This amendment corrects the error to reflect the correct maximum compensation amount. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact. This contract amendment falls within the project’s current budget appropriation. City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description None California Environmental Quality Act No California Environmental Quality Act impact _____________________________________ 57 CC 05-06-2025 57 of 554 Prepared by: Susan Michael, CIP Manager Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Fourth Amendment to Tanko Lighting Master Agreement B – Third Amendment to Tanko Lighting Master Agreement 58 CC 05-06-2025 58 of 554 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 653 BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND TANKO LIGHTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CIP PROJECTS This Fourth Amendment to Agreement 653 is by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Tanko Lighting, a Corporation (“Contractor”) whose address is 220 Bayshore Blvd., San Francisco, CA 94124, and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. The City and Contractor entered into an Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects, effective January 10, 2023 (“Original Agreement”) with a term expiring on June 30, 2024. B. The City and the Consultant entered into a First Amended Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects (“First Amendment”) effective April 22, 2024, with a term expiring on June 30, 2026. C. The City and the Consultant entered into a Second Amended Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects (“Second Amendment”) effective September 6, 2024, with a term expiring on June 30, 2026. D. The City and the Consultant entered into a Third Amended Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects (“Third Amendment”) effective February 12, 2025, with a term expiring on June 30, 2026. E. The Original Agreement, First Amendment, Second Amendment and Third Amendment are collectively referred to as the “Agreement” unless otherwise indicated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 4.1 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Maximum Compensation. City will pay Consultant for satisfactory performance of the Services a total amount that will be based upon actual costs but that will be capped so as not to exceed $336,172 (“Contract Price”), based on the budget and rates set forth in Exhibit C, Compensation, attached and incorporated here. The Contract Price includes all expenses and reimbursements and will remain in place even if Consultant’s actual costs exceed the capped amount. No extra work or payment is permitted in excess of the Contract Price. 2. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 59 CC 05-06-2025 59 of 554 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. CITY OF CUPERTINO By Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Date TANKO LIGHTING By Title Date 60 CC 05-06-2025 60 of 554 1 THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 653 BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND TANKO LIGHTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CIP PROJECTS This Third Amendment to Agreement 653 is by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Tanko Lighting a Corporation (“Contractor”) whose address is220 Bayshore Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94124 and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A.The City and Contractor entered into an Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects effective January 10,2023 (“Original Agreement”) with term expiring June 30, 2024. B.The City and Consultant entered into a First Amended Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects (“First Amendment”) effective April 22,2024, with term expiring June 30, 2026. C.The City and Consultant entered into a Second Amended Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services on Various CIP Projects (Second Amendment”) effective September 6, 2024, with term expiring June 30, 2026. D.The Original Agreement, First Amendment and Second Amendment are collectively referred to as the “Agreement” unless otherwise indicated.herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to provide the Services “as needed” and as set forth in the Scope of Services, attached and incorporated here as Exhibit A. The Services must comply with this Agreement and with each Service Order issued under the authority of the City Director of Public Works or his designee, in accordance with the following procedures. Consultant further agrees to carry out its work in compliance with any applicable local, State, or Federal order regarding COVID- 19. Exhibit A of the Agreement is modified as follows: additional Scope of Services, attached here and incorporated as Exhibit A-2 2. Paragraph 4.1 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Maximum Compensation. City will pay Consultant for satisfactory performance of the Services a total amount that will based upon actual costs but that will be capped so as not to exceed $ 306,914 (“ Contract Price”), based on the budget and rates set forth in Exhibit C, Compensation, attached and incorporated here. The Contract Price includes all expenses and reimbursements and will remain in place 61 CC 05-06-2025 61 of 554 2 even if Consultant’ s actual costs exceed the capped amount. No extra work or payment is permitted in excess of the Contract Price. Exhibit C of the Agreement is modified as follows: additional Compensation, attached and incorporated here as Exhibit C-2 3.Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. CITY OF CUPERTINO By Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Date TANKO LIGHTING By Title Date Jason Tanko Chief Executive Officer 02/06/2025 Christopher D. Jensen City Manager 02/12/2025 02/12/2025 62 CC 05-06-2025 62 of 554 Page 1 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Construction Management – Scope of Services Task 1.0: LED Conversion Phase Task 1.01: Community Outreach and Notification CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the CITY’s media office to help develop a community outreach and notification plan prior to the commencement of any project activities. The plan will ensure project awareness and minimize public disturbance. CONSULTANT shall develop the message and provide the planned installation schedule to the CITY’s media staff for distribution through the CITY’s existing media outlets (press releases, website, etc.). Deliverables: Project Messaging and Schedule: Specific language, draft press release, and timelines related to installation to assist with notifying community members of the project. Pricing – Task 1.01: Community Outreach and Notification Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 10 $2,500 Project Manager $188 32 $6,016 Data Analyst $156 12 $1,872 Total Not to Exceed Price: $10,388 Task 1.02: Logistics Management CONSULTANT shall: Ensure the selected installation contractor stages the receipt of fixture shipments for installation in a manner that ensures the secured storage of materials. Provide the CITY with a schedule of anticipated shipping dates for materials once the materials order is placed. Develop an installation plan that minimizes inconvenience to the CITY and includes ordering schedules, traffic control plans, waste disposal and recycling procedures (that comply with all applicable State and Federal laws), and installation and commissioning schedules as required to the CITY. Facilitate a pre-construction Kick-Off meeting with CITY staff and the installation contractor to review the traffic control plans, work safety, permitting requirements public safety and waste material handling procedures and requirements prior to the start of installation. Coordinate and participate in regularly scheduled progress meetings with CITY staff. Deliverable: Logistics Management Details: Ordering, traffic control plans, required permits, disposal strategy, pre-construction meeting, ongoing meetings, installation and commissioning schedules. Exhibit A2 - C2 63 CC 05-06-2025 63 of 554 Page 2 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Pricing – Task 1.02: Logistics Management Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 21 $5,250 Project Manager $188 104 $19,552 Data Analyst $156 67 $10,452 Total Not to Exceed Price: $35,254 Task 1.03: Installation Management CONSULTANT shall: Develop installation maps and provide installers and relevant CITY staff for accurate project tracking. Ensure that any poles missing pole tags are updated with pole tags consistent with CITY’s existing system. Ensure that installers are equipped with handheld devices and train them in collecting relevant data on both the HPS fixtures being removed, as well as the LED fixtures being installed. Track each crew’s daily progress via time-stamped data on every fixture location. Provide immediate instruction to crews on any course corrections necessary. Deliverable: Installation Maps: Maps with locations and fixture information used to dispatch installation crews and allow CITY staff to track installation routes. Weekly Installation Report: A detailed listing of the locations completed during the installation phase, along with maps corresponding to locations. Pricing – Task 1.03: Installation Management Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 10 $2,500 Project Manager $188 109 $20,492 Data Analyst $156 173 $26,988 Total Not to Exceed Price: $49,980 Task 1.04: Commissioning Coordination CONSULTANT shall ensure that the installers perform final inspection on all fixtures, correct any “punch list” items, test lights to ensure that they work, and identify locations where repair needs CITY assistance. CONSULTANT shall provide a complete commissioning report outlining any errors and actions taken to correct errors. Deliverable: Commissioning Report: Detailed analysis of final installation verification and testing, including an outline of any errors and actions taken to correct errors. 64 CC 05-06-2025 64 of 554 Page 3 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Pricing – Task 1.04: Commissioning Coordination Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 8 $2,000 Project Manager $188 45 $8,460 Data Analyst $156 39 $6,084 Total Not to Exceed Price: $16,544 Task 1.05: Rebate and Tariff Change Coordination CONSULTANT shall: Research any available rebate programs and facilitate all necessary tasks to ensure that the CITY receives the rebates and billing changes for which it is eligible. Prepare all necessary and required documentation for the rebates and submit these to the appropriate departments within the agency. Follow up with the agency to confirm the materials have been received and are in process. Assist the CITY with responses to any utility/agency questions regarding the submitted applications for rebates. Coordinate with the utility on changing tariffs to the newly-installed LED fixture rates by preparing the necessary documentation, submitting it to the utility, confirming the materials have been received, and obtaining the timing for the modification to be processed. If known, provide the contact information for the appropriate party addressing any rate changes for the CITY. Assist the CITY with responses to any utility questions regarding the submitted applications for tariff changes. Deliverable: Rebate and Tariff Change Documentation: A compilation of copies of paperwork submitted and processed with the utility regarding rebate applications and tariff changes. Pricing – Task 1.05: Rebate and Tariff Change Documentation Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 0 $0 Project Manager $188 32 $6,016 Data Analyst $156 35 $5,460 Total Not to Exceed Price: $11,476 Task 1.06: Final Reporting CONSULTANT shall coordinate all final reporting and data requirements to ensure that the CITY considers the project is compliant and complete. This includes finalizing the GIS layer with design and construction data and updating the analysis of gross cost, savings, incentives, net cost, and payback of finalized design, including any operation and maintenance of costs and savings. Additionally, CONSULTANT shall provide contacts and the process whereby the CITY can obtain warranty support with the manufacturer(s) should it be necessary. 65 CC 05-06-2025 65 of 554 Page 4 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Deliverable: Final Reporting Documentation: Final requirements necessary to process the available rebates and tariff changes with the CITY, as well as post-construction electronic GIS records for all newly- installed streetlights in the CITY, including all wattages, badge numbers, locations, and other associate attributes, and environmental disposal documentation. Pricing – Task 1.06: Final Reporting Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 10 $2,500 Project Manager $188 69 $12,972 Data Analyst $156 70 $10,920 Total Not to Exceed Price: $26,392 OPTIONAL – Task 1.07: Remedy of Miss-Billings Based on the results of the Data Reconciliation Report, CONSULTANT shall provide additional assistance reconciling the streetlight billing discrepancies with the utility to credit the CITY for any miss-billings. Deliverable: Miss-Billing Documentation: Submission of required documentation to utility to remedy any streetlight mis-billings. Follow up meeting and coordination with CITY and utility as needed. Pricing – Task 1.07: Remedy of Miss-Billings Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 0 $0 Project Manager $188 12 $2,256 Data Analyst $156 16 $2,496 Total Not to Exceed Price: $4,752 OPTIONAL – Task 1.08: Custom Design for Decorative Fixtures Any decorative fixture beyond the standard design process (defined as any non-cobra head fixture where the design can be determined through the audit process or has already been designed) will require a custom LED replacement design, provided on a per custom design created (not on a per fixture basis). CONSULTANT shall design the custom LED retrofit (note this shall be one custom design for an estimated twenty (20) shoebox fixtures), dispatch of a contractor to measure the fixture, design of a custom insert, coordination with a metal fabricator to create a sample, etc. Should the CITY opt for this Task, it will be performed prior to Task 1.03 – Installation Management. Deliverable: Custom Retrofit Fixture: A custom designed LED retrofit that preserves the aesthetics of the existing shoebox fixture while providing the improved light quality and energy saving benefits. 66 CC 05-06-2025 66 of 554 Page 5 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Pricing – OPTIONAL Task 1.08: Custom Design for Decorative Fixtures Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 4 $1,000 Project Manager $188 6 $1,128 Data Analyst $156 0 $0 Total Not to Exceed Price: $2,128 Summary of Services Task Not to Exceed Price Task 1.01: Community Outreach and Notification $10,388 Task 1.02: Logistics Management $35,254 Task 1.03: Installation Management $49,980 Task 1.04: Commissioning Coordination $16,544 Task 1.05: Rebate and Tariff Change Coordination $11,476 Task 1.06: Final Reporting $26,392 Total Not to Exceed Price: $150,034 Optional Tasks OPTIONAL Task 1.07: Remedy of Miss-Billings $4,752 OPTIONAL Task 1.08: Custom Design for Decorative Fixtures $2,128 Total Cost for Optional Adders (Not included in the above): $6,880 67 CC 05-06-2025 67 of 554 Page 1 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Construction Management – Scope of Services Task 1.0: LED Conversion Phase Task 1.01: Community Outreach and Notification CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the CITY’s media office to help develop a community outreach and notification plan prior to the commencement of any project activities. The plan will ensure project awareness and minimize public disturbance. CONSULTANT shall develop the message and provide the planned installation schedule to the CITY’s media staff for distribution through the CITY’s existing media outlets (press releases, website, etc.). Deliverables: Project Messaging and Schedule: Specific language, draft press release, and timelines related to installation to assist with notifying community members of the project. Pricing – Task 1.01: Community Outreach and Notification Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 10 $2,500 Project Manager $188 32 $6,016 Data Analyst $156 12 $1,872 Total Not to Exceed Price: $10,388 Task 1.02: Logistics Management CONSULTANT shall: Ensure the selected installation contractor stages the receipt of fixture shipments for installation in a manner that ensures the secured storage of materials. Provide the CITY with a schedule of anticipated shipping dates for materials once the materials order is placed. Develop an installation plan that minimizes inconvenience to the CITY and includes ordering schedules, traffic control plans, waste disposal and recycling procedures (that comply with all applicable State and Federal laws), and installation and commissioning schedules as required to the CITY. Facilitate a pre-construction Kick-Off meeting with CITY staff and the installation contractor to review the traffic control plans, work safety, permitting requirements public safety and waste material handling procedures and requirements prior to the start of installation. Coordinate and participate in regularly scheduled progress meetings with CITY staff. Deliverable: Logistics Management Details: Ordering, traffic control plans, required permits, disposal strategy, pre-construction meeting, ongoing meetings, installation and commissioning schedules. Exhibit A2 - C2 68 CC 05-06-2025 68 of 554 Page 2 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Pricing – Task 1.02: Logistics Management Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 21 $5,250 Project Manager $188 104 $19,552 Data Analyst $156 67 $10,452 Total Not to Exceed Price: $35,254 Task 1.03: Installation Management CONSULTANT shall: Develop installation maps and provide installers and relevant CITY staff for accurate project tracking. Ensure that any poles missing pole tags are updated with pole tags consistent with CITY’s existing system. Ensure that installers are equipped with handheld devices and train them in collecting relevant data on both the HPS fixtures being removed, as well as the LED fixtures being installed. Track each crew’s daily progress via time-stamped data on every fixture location. Provide immediate instruction to crews on any course corrections necessary. Deliverable: Installation Maps: Maps with locations and fixture information used to dispatch installation crews and allow CITY staff to track installation routes. Weekly Installation Report: A detailed listing of the locations completed during the installation phase, along with maps corresponding to locations. Pricing – Task 1.03: Installation Management Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 10 $2,500 Project Manager $188 109 $20,492 Data Analyst $156 173 $26,988 Total Not to Exceed Price: $49,980 Task 1.04: Commissioning Coordination CONSULTANT shall ensure that the installers perform final inspection on all fixtures, correct any “punch list” items, test lights to ensure that they work, and identify locations where repair needs CITY assistance. CONSULTANT shall provide a complete commissioning report outlining any errors and actions taken to correct errors. Deliverable: Commissioning Report: Detailed analysis of final installation verification and testing, including an outline of any errors and actions taken to correct errors. 69 CC 05-06-2025 69 of 554 Page 3 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Pricing – Task 1.04: Commissioning Coordination Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 8 $2,000 Project Manager $188 45 $8,460 Data Analyst $156 39 $6,084 Total Not to Exceed Price: $16,544 Task 1.05: Rebate and Tariff Change Coordination CONSULTANT shall: Research any available rebate programs and facilitate all necessary tasks to ensure that the CITY receives the rebates and billing changes for which it is eligible. Prepare all necessary and required documentation for the rebates and submit these to the appropriate departments within the agency. Follow up with the agency to confirm the materials have been received and are in process. Assist the CITY with responses to any utility/agency questions regarding the submitted applications for rebates. Coordinate with the utility on changing tariffs to the newly-installed LED fixture rates by preparing the necessary documentation, submitting it to the utility, confirming the materials have been received, and obtaining the timing for the modification to be processed. If known, provide the contact information for the appropriate party addressing any rate changes for the CITY. Assist the CITY with responses to any utility questions regarding the submitted applications for tariff changes. Deliverable: Rebate and Tariff Change Documentation: A compilation of copies of paperwork submitted and processed with the utility regarding rebate applications and tariff changes. Pricing – Task 1.05: Rebate and Tariff Change Documentation Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 0 $0 Project Manager $188 32 $6,016 Data Analyst $156 35 $5,460 Total Not to Exceed Price: $11,476 Task 1.06: Final Reporting CONSULTANT shall coordinate all final reporting and data requirements to ensure that the CITY considers the project is compliant and complete. This includes finalizing the GIS layer with design and construction data and updating the analysis of gross cost, savings, incentives, net cost, and payback of finalized design, including any operation and maintenance of costs and savings. Additionally, CONSULTANT shall provide contacts and the process whereby the CITY can obtain warranty support with the manufacturer(s) should it be necessary. 70 CC 05-06-2025 70 of 554 Page 4 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Deliverable: Final Reporting Documentation: Final requirements necessary to process the available rebates and tariff changes with the CITY, as well as post-construction electronic GIS records for all newly- installed streetlights in the CITY, including all wattages, badge numbers, locations, and other associate attributes, and environmental disposal documentation. Pricing – Task 1.06: Final Reporting Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 10 $2,500 Project Manager $188 69 $12,972 Data Analyst $156 70 $10,920 Total Not to Exceed Price: $26,392 OPTIONAL – Task 1.07: Remedy of Miss-Billings Based on the results of the Data Reconciliation Report, CONSULTANT shall provide additional assistance reconciling the streetlight billing discrepancies with the utility to credit the CITY for any miss-billings. Deliverable: Miss-Billing Documentation: Submission of required documentation to utility to remedy any streetlight mis-billings. Follow up meeting and coordination with CITY and utility as needed. Pricing – Task 1.07: Remedy of Miss-Billings Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 0 $0 Project Manager $188 12 $2,256 Data Analyst $156 16 $2,496 Total Not to Exceed Price: $4,752 OPTIONAL – Task 1.08: Custom Design for Decorative Fixtures Any decorative fixture beyond the standard design process (defined as any non-cobra head fixture where the design can be determined through the audit process or has already been designed) will require a custom LED replacement design, provided on a per custom design created (not on a per fixture basis). CONSULTANT shall design the custom LED retrofit (note this shall be one custom design for an estimated twenty (20) shoebox fixtures), dispatch of a contractor to measure the fixture, design of a custom insert, coordination with a metal fabricator to create a sample, etc. Should the CITY opt for this Task, it will be performed prior to Task 1.03 – Installation Management. Deliverable: Custom Retrofit Fixture: A custom designed LED retrofit that preserves the aesthetics of the existing shoebox fixture while providing the improved light quality and energy saving benefits. 71 CC 05-06-2025 71 of 554 Page 5 of 5 Service Order No. 3 to Master Service Agreement Consultant Services – City of Cupertino & Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Pricing – OPTIONAL Task 1.08: Custom Design for Decorative Fixtures Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 4 $1,000 Project Manager $188 6 $1,128 Data Analyst $156 0 $0 Total Not to Exceed Price: $2,128 Summary of Services Task Not to Exceed Price Task 1.01: Community Outreach and Notification $10,388 Task 1.02: Logistics Management $35,254 Task 1.03: Installation Management $49,980 Task 1.04: Commissioning Coordination $16,544 Task 1.05: Rebate and Tariff Change Coordination $11,476 Task 1.06: Final Reporting $26,392 Total Not to Exceed Price: $150,034 Optional Tasks OPTIONAL Task 1.07: Remedy of Miss-Billings $4,752 OPTIONAL Task 1.08: Custom Design for Decorative Fixtures $2,128 Total Cost for Optional Adders (Not included in the above): $6,880 72 CC 05-06-2025 72 of 554 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CANCELLATION DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE LOCJECT PRO- POLICY GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: OCCURCLAIMS-MADE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES (Ea occurrence)$ DAMAGE TO RENTED EACH OCCURRENCE $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ RETENTIONDED CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR AGGREGATE $ EACH OCCURRENCE $UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY)LIMITS WC STATU- TORY LIMITS OTH- ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below Mandatory in NH) OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADDL WVD SUBR N / A Ea accident) Per accident) THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: INSURED PHONE A/C, No, Ext): PRODUCER ADDRESS: E-MAIL FAX A/C, No): CONTACT NAME: NAIC # INSURER A : INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 1,000, 000 2M/4M 751717672 751717672 220 Bayshore Blvd. 220 Bayshore Blvd. City of Cupertino Cupertino City Hall 05/ 19/ 25 X X Professional 50,000 25674 25674 15792 15792 10833 10833 1,000, 000 25682 25682 4,000, 000 RE: Master Agreement for Construction Management 1-888- 845-2248 1-888- 845-2248 XX X The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers Additional Insured per written contract: General Liability Deductible:$5,000 BI/PD Deductible per Occurrence Workers' Comp Deductible: $0 05/ 19/ 25 Auto Deductible: Comp $1,000, Coll $1,000 05/ 19/ 24 USA X 05/ 19/ 25 Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. DBA: Tanko Lighting DBA: Tanko Lighting VIFX003004 UB-5K373797-24- 14-G 05/ 19/ 24 1,000, 000 05/ 19/25X X maggi12 2 2 X X 05/ 19/ 24 2,000, 000 X Suite 1190 Suite 1190 Cupertino, CA 95014 1901 S. Bascom Avenue 1901 S. Bascom Avenue 5,000 TRAVELERS IND CO OF CT TRAVELERS IND CO OF CT GEMINI INS CO GEMINI INS CO UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON 2,000, 000 TRAVELERS PROP CAS CO OF AMER TRAVELERS PROP CAS CO OF AMER 1,000, 000 D 05/ 19/ 24 BA-0N492815-24- 14-G 05/ 19/ 24 San Francisco, CA 94124 USA San Francisco, CA 94124 USA Y C A A X VIGP027296 1,000,000B 01/ 24/2025 01/24/2025 PSM0039964400 X X 4,000, 000 1,000, 000 LIC #0L72977 LIC #0L72977 10300 Torre Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 USA Campbell, CA 95008 USA 05/ 19/ 25 Each/Aggregate McSherry & Hudson, An Alera Group Company McSherry & Hudson, An Alera Group Company X 73 CC 05-06-2025 73 of 554 SUPP (05/04) SUPPLEMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DATE NAME OF INSURED: Additional Description of Operations/Remarks from Page 1: Additional Information: Notice of Cancellation per attached form. Automobile Liability: Primary Wording per attached form. Additional Insured per attached forms. Waiver of Subrogation per attached form. Notice of Cancellation per attached form. Per Project Aggregate per attached form. Workers Compensation: Waiver of Subrogation per attached form. General Liability: Notice of Cancellation per attached form. Includes: Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. DBA: Tanko Lighting 01/24/2025 Additional Insured and Waiver of Subrogation per attached form. Primary Wording per attached form. 74 CC 05-06-2025 74 of 554 VE 01 39 05 15 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission Page 1 of 1 Policy Number: VIGP027296 VE 01 39 05 15 Insured Name: Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Number: 41 Effective Date: 12/18/2024 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION TO DESIGNATED ENTITIES This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: Commercial General Liability Coverage Part SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Cupertino Street Address: 10300 Torre Avenue City: Cupertino State: CA Zip Code: 95014 TRANSACTION PREMIUM CHARGE 250.00 If we cancel this policy on or before the expiration date of the policy, we will mail or deliver to the person or organization shown in the schedule above, written notice of cancellation to the address included above at least 30 days before the effective date of cancellation. Notice of cancellation will state the effective date of cancellation. The policy will end on that date. If the notice is mailed, proof of mailing shall be sufficient proof of notice This endorsement shall not apply for the following reasons: a.Cancellation for nonpayment of premium; or b.Non-renewal of the policy for any reason. All other terms and conditions of the policy shall apply and remain unchanged. 75 CC 05-06-2025 75 of 554 CG 24 04 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 Policy Number: VIGP027296 CG 24 04 12 19 Insured Name: Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Number: 42 Effective Date: 12/18/2024 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US (WAIVER OF SUBROGATION) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: Commercial General Liability Coverage Part Schedule Name Of Person(s) Or Organization(s): City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 95014 Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us of Section IV – Conditions: We waive any right of recovery against the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule above because of payments we make under this Coverage Part. Such waiver by us applies only to the extent that the insured has waived its right of recovery against such person(s) or organization(s) prior to loss. This endorsement applies only to the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule above. All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged. 76 CC 05-06-2025 76 of 554 VE 09 73 04 20 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission Page 1 of 1 Policy Number: VIGP027296 VE 09 73 04 20 Insured Name: Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Number: 33 Effective Date: 05/19/2024 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY – OTHER INSURANCE CONDITION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: Commercial General Liability Coverage Part The following is added to the Other Insurance Condition and supersedes any provision to the contrary: Primary And Noncontributory Insurance This insurance is primary to and will not seek contribution from any other Commercial General Liability insurance available to an additional insured under your policy, but only if: 1)The additional insured is a Named Insured under such other Commercial General Liability insurance; and 2)You have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that this insurance would be primary and would not seek contribution from any other Commercial General Liability insurance available to the additional insured. Coverage granted to an additional insured remains subject to all terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions set forth in the endorsement form that conferred the additional insured status. In the event of conflict between this endorsement and an endorsement conferring additional insured status, then the endorsement conferring additional insured status shall govern the scope of coverage available to the additional insured. All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged. 77 CC 05-06-2025 77 of 554 POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 37 12 19 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 37 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – COMPLETED OPERATIONS This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location And Description Of Completed Operations Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A.Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury" or property damage" caused, in whole or in part, by your work" at the location designated and described in the Schedule of this endorsement performed for that additional insured and included in the "products-completed operations hazard". However: 1.The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2.If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits Of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1.Required by the contract or agreement; or 2.Available under the applicable limits of insurance; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable limits of insurance. Any person or organization for whom you are performing “commercial construction” during the period of this policy and have agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured for products-completed operations. “Commercial construction” does not include any habitational or residential construction other than hotels or apartments VIGP027296 78 CC 05-06-2025 78 of 554 POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 10 12 19 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 10 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 2 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – SCHEDULED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location(s) Of Covered Operations Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A.Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by: 1.Your acts or omissions; or 2.The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf; in the performance of your ongoing operations for the additional insured(s) at the location(s) designated above. However: 1.The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2.If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply: This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or property damage" occurring after: 1.All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the location of the covered operations has been completed; or 2.That portion of "your work" out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project. VIGP027296 Any person or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy 79 CC 05-06-2025 79 of 554 Page 2 of 2 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 CG 20 10 12 19 C.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits Of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1.Required by the contract or agreement; or 2.Available under the applicable limits of insurance; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable limits of insurance. 80 CC 05-06-2025 80 of 554 VE 04 87 12 13 Page 1 of 2 Policy Number: VE 04 87 12 13 Insured Name: Number: Effective Date: THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED LOCATION(S) GENERAL AGGREGATE LIMIT - SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM AGGREGATE This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: SCHEDULE Designated Location(s): A.For all sums which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages caused by "occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and for all medical expenses caused by accidents under Section I – Coverage C, which can be attributed only to operations at a single designated "location" shown in the Schedule above: 1.A separate Designated Location General Aggregate Limit applies to each designated "location", and that limit is equal to the amount of the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations. 2.The Designated Location General Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay for the sum of all damages under Coverage A, except damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in the "products-completed operations hazard", and for medical expenses under Coverage C regardless of the number of: a.Insureds; b.Claims made or "suits" brought; or c.Persons or organizations making claims or bringing "suits". 3.Any payments made under Coverage A for damages or under Coverage C for medical expenses shall reduce the Designated Location General Aggregate Limit for that designated "location". Such payments shall not reduce the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations nor shall they reduce any other Designated Location General Aggregate Limit for any other designated "location" shown in the Schedule above. 4.The limits shown in the Declarations for Each Occurrence, Damage To Premises Rented To You and Medical Expense continue to apply. However, instead of being subject to the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations, such limits will be subject to the applicable Designated Location General Aggregate Limit. 5.All payments under this endorsement are subject to the Maximum Aggregate Limit of: VIGP027296 Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. 5.19.2024 81 CC 05-06-2025 81 of 554 VE 04 87 12 13 Page 2 of 2 The Maximum Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay under this endorsement regardless of the number of Designated Location General Aggregate Limits. The Maximum Aggregate Limit is not available to pay for damages or expenses other than as set forth in the endorsement. B.For all sums which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages caused by "occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and for all medical expenses caused by accidents under Section I – Coverage C, which cannot be attributed only to operations at a single designated "location" shown in the Schedule above: 1.Any payments made under Coverage A for damages or under Coverage C for medical expenses shall reduce the amount available under the General Aggregate Limit or the Products-completed Operations Aggregate Limit, whichever is applicable; and 2.Such payments shall not reduce any Designated Location General Aggregate Limit. C.When coverage for liability arising out of the "products-completed operations hazard" is provided, any payments for damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in the "products- completed operations hazard" will reduce the Products-completed Operations Aggregate Limit, and not reduce the General Aggregate Limit nor the Designated Location General Aggregate Limit. D.For the purposes of this endorsement, the Definitions Section is amended by the addition of the following definition: Location" means premises involving the same or connecting lots, or premises whose connection is interrupted only by a street, roadway, waterway or right-of-way of a railroad. E.The provisions of Section III – Limits Of Insurance not otherwise modified by this endorsement shall continue to apply as stipulated. 82 CC 05-06-2025 82 of 554 POLICY NUMBER: BA-0N492815-24-14-G ISSUE DATE: 12-19-24 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION -NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OR NONRENEWAL PROVIDED BY US This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following : ALL COVERAGE PARTS INCLUDED IN THIS POLICY SCHEDULE CANCELLATION: Number of Days Notice: ___ 3_o ___ _ WHEN WE DO NOT RENEW (Nonrenewal): Number of Days Notice: ___ 3_o ___ _ PERSON OR ORGANIZATION: CITY OF CUPERTINO ADDRESS: 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO CA 95014 PROVISIONS A. If we cancel this policy for any legally permitted reason other than nonpayment of premium, and a number of days is shown for Cancellation in the Schedule above, we will mail notice of cancellation to the person or organization shown in such Schedule . We will mail such notice to the address shown in the Schedule above at least the number of days shown for Cancellation in such Schedule before the effective date of cancellation. B. If we do not renew this policy for any legally permitted reason other than nonpayment of premium, and a number of days is shown for When We Do Not Renew (Nonrenewal) in the Schedule above , we will mail notice of nonrenewal to the person or organization shown in such Schedule. We will mail such notice to the address shown in the Schedule above at least the number of days shown for When We Do Not Renew (Nonrenewal) in such Schedule before the effective date of nonrenewal. IL T4 00 OS 19 © 2019 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved . Page 1 of 1 83 CC 05-06-2025 83 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 84 CC 05-06-2025 84 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 85 CC 05-06-2025 85 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 86 CC 05-06-2025 86 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 87 CC 05-06-2025 87 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 88 CC 05-06-2025 88 of 554 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY POLICY ENDORSEMENT WC 99 06 R3 (00) POLICY NUMBER: NOTICE OF CANCELLATION TO DESIGNATED PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS The following is added to PART SIX CONDITIONS: Notice Of Cancellation To Designated Persons Or Organizations If we cancel this policy for any reason other than non-payment of premium by you,we will provide notice of such cancellation to each person or organization designated in the Schedule below.We will mail or deliver such notice to each person or organization at its listed address at least the number of days shown for that person or organiza- tion before the cancellation is to take effect. You are responsible for providing us with the information necessary to accurately complete the Schedule below. If we cannot mail or deliver a notice of cancellation to a designated person or organization because the name or address of such designated person or organization provided to us is not accurate or complete,we have no responsibility to mail,deliver or otherwise notify such designated person or organization of the cancellation. SCHEDULE Name and Address of Designated Persons or Organizations: ST ASSIGN:DATE OF ISSUE: 2013 The Travelers Indemnity Company.All rights reserved. Number of Days Notice UB-5K373797-24-14-G City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 30 01-24 -25 89 CC 05-06-2025 89 of 554 TRAVELERSJ , ONE TOWER SQUARE HARTFORD CT 06183 WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY POLICY ENDORSEMENT WC 99 03 76 ( A)-001 POLICY NUMBER: UB-SK373797-24-14-G WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT -CALIFORNIA BLANKET WAIVER) We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 2. oo % of the California workers' compensation pre- mium. Person or Organization ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH THE INSURED HAS AGREED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED PRIOR TO LOSS TO FURNISH THIS WAIVER. Schedule Job Description This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective Insured Insurance Company DATE OF ISSUE: 06-04-24 Policy No. Endorsement No. Premium Countersigned by ___________ _ ST ASSIGN: Page 1 of 1 90 CC 05-06-2025 90 of 554 1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 653 BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND TANKO LIGHTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CIP PROJECTS This Second Amendment to Agreement 653 is by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Tanko Lighting, a Corporation (“Contractor”) whose address is 220 Bayshore Blvd., San Francisco, CA 94124, and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. The City and Contractor entered into an Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects, effective January 10, 2023 (“Original Agreement”) with a term expiring on June 30, 2024. B. The City and the Consultant entered into a First Amended Agreement for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects (“First Amendment”) effective April 22, 2024, with a term expiring on June 30, 2026; and C. The Original Agreement and First Amendment are collectively referred to as the Agreement” unless otherwise indicated. D. City and Contractor desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to provide the Services “as needed” and as set forth in the Scope of Services, attached and incorporated here as Exhibit A. The Services must comply with this Agreement and with each Service Order issued under the authority of the City Director of Public Works or his designee, in accordance with the following procedures. Consultant further agrees to carry out its work in compliance with any applicable local, State, or Federal order regarding COVID-19. Exhibit A of the Agreement is modified as follows: additional Scope of Services, attached here and incorporated as Exhibit A-1. 2. Paragraph 4.1 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Maximum Compensation. City will pay Consultant for satisfactory performance of the Services a total amount that will based upon actual costs but that will be capped so as not to exceed $179,258 (“Contract Price”), based on the budget and rates set forth in Exhibit C, Compensation, attached and incorporated here. The Contract Price includes all expenses and reimbursements and will remain in place even if Consultant’s actual costs exceed the capped amount. No extra work or payment is permitted in excess of the Contract Price. Exhibit C of the Agreement is modified as follows: additional Compensation, attached here and incorporated as Exhibit C-1. 91 CC 05-06-2025 91 of 554 2 3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. CITY OF CUPERTINO By Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Date TANKO LIGHTING By Title Date EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION Item PO Number Amount Amendment 1 Extend Term to 6/30/2026 Original NTE 175,000 Amendment 2 Increase funding 4,258.00 NTE TOTAL - 179,258179,258.00 SO 1 Updated Streetlight Transition Assessment 2023-328 -9,190.00 SO 2 LED Streetlight Transition 2024-179 -164,187.00 MASTER AGREEMENT BALANCE - 179,2585,881.00 Chief Executive Officer Sep 4, 2024 Christopher D. Jensen Director of Public Works Sep 6, 2024 Sep 6, 2024 92 CC 05-06-2025 92 of 554 www.tankolighting.com 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 August 28, 2024 Jo Anne Johnson Public Works Project Manager Department of Public Works City of Cupertino, CA JoanneJ@cupertino.gov RE: Proposed Additional Scope and Budget – Agreement 653, Service Order No. 2 Dear Ms. Johnson, Per your request, please find below Tanko Lighting’s proposed additional scope and budget for Agreement 653, Service Order No. 2. Proposed Scope of Work Task 1.06a: Updated Bid Documents As the City is no longer interested in separating the material and installation bids for this project, Tanko Lighting will combine the draft technical specifications and bid schedules (that are currently separate d) into one draft tech nical specification and bid schedule, such that both installation and materials are combined into one bid. Additionally, Tanko Lighting will define howany proposed substitute fixtures will be submitted and evaluated and will develop a substitution request form that lists items to be submitted for evaluation (e.g. product cut sheets, photometric analysis, sample fixtures for field testing, etc.). Deliverables: Updated Bid Documents: Draft updated technical specifications and bid schedule representing a combined installation/materials bid, as well as submission and evaluation processes for substitute fixture requests. Substitution Request Form: Draft document that formally requests a material substitution and lists required submittals. Proposed Pricing Task 1.06a: Updated Bid Documents Position Hourly Rate Estimated Hours Extended Price Principal $250 5 $1,250 Project Manager $188 16 $3,008 Project Associate $156 - - Total Not to Exceed Price: $4,258 Please let us know if you have any questions. Regards, Jason Tanko Chief Executive Officer EXHIBITS A-1, C-1 93 CC 05-06-2025 93 of 554 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CANCELLATION DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE LOCJECT PRO- POLICY GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: OCCURCLAIMS-MADE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES (Ea occurrence)$ DAMAGE TO RENTED EACH OCCURRENCE $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ RETENTIONDED CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR AGGREGATE $ EACH OCCURRENCE $UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY)LIMITS WC STATU- TORY LIMITS OTH- ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below Mandatory in NH) OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADDL WVD SUBR N / A Ea accident) Per accident) THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: INSURED PHONE A/C, No, Ext): PRODUCER ADDRESS: E-MAIL FAX A/C, No): CONTACT NAME: NAIC # INSURER A : INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 1,000, 000 2,000,000 750983915 750983915 220 Bayshore Blvd. 220 Bayshore Blvd. City of Cupertino Cupertino City Hall 05/ 19/ 25 X X Professional 50,000 25674 25674 15792 15792 10833 10833 1,000, 000 25682 25682 4,000, 000 RE: Master Agreement for Construction Management X 1-888- 845-2248 1-888- 845-2248 X The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers Additional Insured per written contract: 05/ 19/ 25 05/ 19/ 24 USA X 05/ 19/ 25 Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. DBA: Tanko Lighting DBA: Tanko Lighting VIFX003004 UB-5K373797-24- 14-G 05/ 19/ 24 X 1,000, 000 05/ 19/25X X maggi12 1 1 X X 05/ 19/ 24 2,000, 000 X Suite 1190 Suite 1190 Cupertino, CA 95014 1901 S. Bascom Avenue 1901 S. Bascom Avenue 5,000 TRAVELERS IND CO OF CT TRAVELERS IND CO OF CT GEMINI INS CO GEMINI INS CO UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON 2,000, 000 TRAVELERS PROP CAS CO OF AMER TRAVELERS PROP CAS CO OF AMER 1,000, 000 D 05/ 19/ 24 BA-0N492815-24- 14-G 05/ 19/ 24 San Francisco, CA 94124 USA San Francisco, CA 94124 USA Y C A 408- 550-2130 408-550-2130 A X VIGP027296 1,000,000B 06/ 05/2024 06/05/2024 PSM0039964400 X X 4,000, 000 1,000, 000 LIC #0L72977 LIC #0L72977 10300 Torre Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 USA Campbell, CA 95008 USA 05/ 19/ 25 Each/Aggregate McSherry & Hudson, An Alera Group Company McSherry & Hudson, An Alera Group Company X 94 CC 05-06-2025 94 of 554 SUPP (05/04) SUPPLEMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DATE NAME OF INSURED: Additional Description of Operations/Remarks from Page 1: Additional Information: Automobile Liability: Additional Insured and Waiver of Subrogation per attached form. Primary Wording per attached form. Additional Insured per attached forms. Waiver of Subrogation per attached form. Per Project Aggregate per attached form. General Liability: Workers Compensation: Includes: Waiver of Subrogation per attached form. Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. DBA: Tanko Lighting 06/05/2024 Primary Wording per attached form. 95 CC 05-06-2025 95 of 554 POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 37 12 19 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 37 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – COMPLETED OPERATIONS This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location And Description Of Completed Operations Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A.Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury" or property damage" caused, in whole or in part, by your work" at the location designated and described in the Schedule of this endorsement performed for that additional insured and included in the "products-completed operations hazard". However: 1.The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2.If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits Of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1.Required by the contract or agreement; or 2.Available under the applicable limits of insurance; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable limits of insurance. Any person or organization for whom you are performing “commercial construction” during the period of this policy and have agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured for products-completed operations. “Commercial construction” does not include any habitational or residential construction other than hotels or apartments VIGP027296 96 CC 05-06-2025 96 of 554 POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 10 12 19 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 10 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 2 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – SCHEDULED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location(s) Of Covered Operations Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A.Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by: 1.Your acts or omissions; or 2.The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf; in the performance of your ongoing operations for the additional insured(s) at the location(s) designated above. However: 1.The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2.If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply: This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or property damage" occurring after: 1.All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the location of the covered operations has been completed; or 2.That portion of "your work" out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project. VIGP027296 Any person or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy 97 CC 05-06-2025 97 of 554 Page 2 of 2 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 CG 20 10 12 19 C.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits Of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1.Required by the contract or agreement; or 2.Available under the applicable limits of insurance; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable limits of insurance. 98 CC 05-06-2025 98 of 554 VE 09 73 04 20 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission Page 1 of 1 Policy Number: VIGP027296 VE 09 73 04 20 Insured Name: Tanko Streetlighting, Inc. Number: 33 Effective Date: 05/19/2024 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY – OTHER INSURANCE CONDITION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: Commercial General Liability Coverage Part The following is added to the Other Insurance Condition and supersedes any provision to the contrary: Primary And Noncontributory Insurance This insurance is primary to and will not seek contribution from any other Commercial General Liability insurance available to an additional insured under your policy, but only if: 1)The additional insured is a Named Insured under such other Commercial General Liability insurance; and 2)You have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that this insurance would be primary and would not seek contribution from any other Commercial General Liability insurance available to the additional insured. Coverage granted to an additional insured remains subject to all terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions set forth in the endorsement form that conferred the additional insured status. In the event of conflict between this endorsement and an endorsement conferring additional insured status, then the endorsement conferring additional insured status shall govern the scope of coverage available to the additional insured. All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged. 99 CC 05-06-2025 99 of 554 05-19-24 24 100 CC 05-06-2025 100 of 554 VE 04 87 12 13 Page 1 of 2 Policy Number: VE 04 87 12 13 Insured Name: Number: Effective Date: THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED LOCATION(S) GENERAL AGGREGATE LIMIT - SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM AGGREGATE This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: SCHEDULE Designated Location(s): A.For all sums which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages caused by "occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and for all medical expenses caused by accidents under Section I – Coverage C, which can be attributed only to operations at a single designated "location" shown in the Schedule above: 1.A separate Designated Location General Aggregate Limit applies to each designated "location", and that limit is equal to the amount of the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations. 2.The Designated Location General Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay for the sum of all damages under Coverage A, except damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in the "products-completed operations hazard", and for medical expenses under Coverage C regardless of the number of: a.Insureds; b.Claims made or "suits" brought; or c.Persons or organizations making claims or bringing "suits". 3.Any payments made under Coverage A for damages or under Coverage C for medical expenses shall reduce the Designated Location General Aggregate Limit for that designated "location". Such payments shall not reduce the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations nor shall they reduce any other Designated Location General Aggregate Limit for any other designated "location" shown in the Schedule above. 4.The limits shown in the Declarations for Each Occurrence, Damage To Premises Rented To You and Medical Expense continue to apply. However, instead of being subject to the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations, such limits will be subject to the applicable Designated Location General Aggregate Limit. 5.All payments under this endorsement are subject to the Maximum Aggregate Limit of: VIGP027296 Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. 5.19.2024 101 CC 05-06-2025 101 of 554 VE 04 87 12 13 Page 2 of 2 The Maximum Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay under this endorsement regardless of the number of Designated Location General Aggregate Limits. The Maximum Aggregate Limit is not available to pay for damages or expenses other than as set forth in the endorsement. B.For all sums which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages caused by "occurrences" under Section I – Coverage A, and for all medical expenses caused by accidents under Section I – Coverage C, which cannot be attributed only to operations at a single designated "location" shown in the Schedule above: 1.Any payments made under Coverage A for damages or under Coverage C for medical expenses shall reduce the amount available under the General Aggregate Limit or the Products-completed Operations Aggregate Limit, whichever is applicable; and 2.Such payments shall not reduce any Designated Location General Aggregate Limit. C.When coverage for liability arising out of the "products-completed operations hazard" is provided, any payments for damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in the "products- completed operations hazard" will reduce the Products-completed Operations Aggregate Limit, and not reduce the General Aggregate Limit nor the Designated Location General Aggregate Limit. D.For the purposes of this endorsement, the Definitions Section is amended by the addition of the following definition: Location" means premises involving the same or connecting lots, or premises whose connection is interrupted only by a street, roadway, waterway or right-of-way of a railroad. E.The provisions of Section III – Limits Of Insurance not otherwise modified by this endorsement shall continue to apply as stipulated. 102 CC 05-06-2025 102 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 103 CC 05-06-2025 103 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 104 CC 05-06-2025 104 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 105 CC 05-06-2025 105 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 106 CC 05-06-2025 106 of 554 Policy Number: BA-0N492815-24-14-G 107 CC 05-06-2025 107 of 554 108 CC 05-06-2025 108 of 554 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 653 BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND TANKO LIGHTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CIP PROJECTS This First Amendment to Agreement 653 is by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Tanko Lighting, a Corporation (“Contractor”) whose address is 220 Bayshore Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94124, and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. On January 10, 2023 Agreement 653 (“Agreement”) was entered into by and between City and Contractor for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects. B. City and Contractor desire to modify the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. Paragraph 3.1 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: Term This Agreement begins on the Effective Date and ends on June 30, 2026 2. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect. SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 109 CC 05-06-2025 109 of 554 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed. CITY OF CUPERTINO By Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Date TANKO LIGHTING By Title Date EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION Item PO Number Amount SO #1 Updated Streetlight Transition Assessment 2023-328 9,190.00 9,190.00 Chief Executive Officer Apr 22, 2024 Christopher D. Jensen Assistant Director of Public Works Apr 22, 2024 Apr 22, 2024 110 CC 05-06-2025 110 of 554 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CANCELLATION DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE LOCJECT PRO- POLICY GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: OCCURCLAIMS-MADE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES (Ea occurrence)$ DAMAGE TO RENTED EACH OCCURRENCE $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ RETENTIONDED CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR AGGREGATE $ EACH OCCURRENCE $UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY)LIMITS WC STATU- TORY LIMITS OTH- ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below Mandatory in NH) OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADDL WVD SUBR N / A Ea accident) Per accident) THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: INSURED PHONE A/C, No, Ext): PRODUCER ADDRESS: E-MAIL FAX A/C, No): CONTACT NAME: NAIC # INSURER A : INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 1,000, 000 X 15792 15792 25674 25674 A 17221 17221 yeseniasj Y 05/ 19/ 23 1-888- 845-2248 1-888- 845-2248 X 2,000, 000 Each/Aggregate 1 1 B X 05/ 22/2023 05/22/2023 X 408- 550-2119 408-550-2119 A 05/ 19/ 23 LIC #0L72977 LIC #0L72977 05/ 19/ 23 1,000, 000 San Francisco, CA 94124 San Francisco, CA 94124 UB-5K373797-23- 14-G 2,000,000 McSherry & Hudson, An Alera Group Company McSherry & Hudson, An Alera Group Company X 05/ 19/ 24 05/ 19/ 23 X The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers Additional Insured per written contract: RE: Master Agreement for Construction Management X C 1,000, 000 X 1,000, 000 BA-0N492815-23- 14-CAG 68800258 68800258 X X 1,000, 000 X 05/ 19/ 24 USA UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON TRAVELERS PROP CAS CO OF AMER TRAVELERS PROP CAS CO OF AMER HOMESITE INS CO HOMESITE INS CO AE233391 1,000, 000 05/ 19/ 24 05/ 19/ 23 B 5,000 X DBA: Tanko Lighting DBA: Tanko Lighting Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino City Hall 100, 000 City of Cupertino Suite 1190 Suite 1190 X 05/ 19/ 24 1901 S. Bascom Avenue 1901 S. Bascom Avenue CXS-137943905-02 2,000, 000 4,000, 000 Professional 4,000, 000 X Campbell, CA 95008 Campbell, CA 95008 CPP-019692-00 220 Bayshore Blvd. 220 Bayshore Blvd. 408- 550-2130 408-550-2130 05/ 19/ 24 10300 Torre Avenue 111 CC 05-06-2025 111 of 554 SUPP (05/04) SUPPLEMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DATE NAME OF INSURED: Additional Description of Operations/Remarks from Page 1: Additional Information: Waiver of Subrogation per attached form WC990376A001. Workers Compensation: Primary Wording per attached form CA00011013. 05/22/2023 DBA: Tanko Lighting Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. Additional Insured and Waiver of Subrogation per attached form CAT3530215. Automobile Liability: Waiver of Subrogation per attached form CG2404 1219 Per Project Aggregate per attached from CGL 3201 CW 0321 Primary Wording per attached form CG2001 1219 Additional Insured per attached form CG2037 0413 and CG2010 0413. General Liability: Includes: 112 CC 05-06-2025 112 of 554 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 37 04 13 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. POLICY NUMBER: CPP-019692-00 CG 20 37 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 1 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – COMPLETED OPERATIONS This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location And Description Of Completed Operations Any person or organization for whom you are performing “commercial construction” during the period of this policy and have agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured for products-completed operations. “Commercial construction” does not include any habitational or residential construction other than hotels or apartments. Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury" or property damage" caused, in whole or in part, by your work" at the location designated and described in the Schedule of this endorsement performed for that additional insured and included in the "products-completed operations hazard". However: 1. The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits Of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1. Required by the contract or agreement; or 2. Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations. 113 CC 05-06-2025 113 of 554 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 10 04 13 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. POLICY NUMBER: CPP-019692-00 CG 20 10 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 2 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – SCHEDULED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location(s) Of Covered Operations Any person or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by: 1. Your acts or omissions; or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf; in the performance of your ongoing operations for the additional insured(s) at the location(s) designated above. However: 1. The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply: This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or property damage" occurring after: 1. All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the location of the covered operations has been completed; or 2. That portion of "your work" out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project. 114 CC 05-06-2025 114 of 554 Page 2 of 2 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 CG 20 10 04 13 C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits Of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1. Required by the contract or agreement; or 2. Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations. 115 CC 05-06-2025 115 of 554 CGL 32 01 CW 09 21 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER PROJECT, SUBJECT TO POLICY AGGREGATE This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the: Commercial General Liability Coverage Part The General Aggregate Limit under SECTION III – LIMITS OF INSURANCE, and as set forth on the Declarations, shall apply separately to each of your projects away from premises owned by or rented to you. Notwithstanding the application of the General Aggregate Limit to each of your projects, the most will we pay for all claims, suits” and “occurrences” for which coverage is provided under this policy is the following: Policy Aggregate Limit 5,000,000 for all Claims, Suits, and Occurrences If this endorsement is issued after the Policy has been issued, it is deemed to have been added to the list of forms and endorsements on the Declarations or any Schedule attached to this Policy. All other terms and conditions of this Policy remain unchanged. POLICY NUMBER: CPP-019692-00 116 CC 05-06-2025 116 of 554 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 01 12 19 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 01 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY – OTHER INSURANCE CONDITION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART LIQUOR LIABILITY COVERAGE PART PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART The following is added to the Other Insurance Condition and supersedes any provision to the contrary: Primary And Noncontributory Insurance This insurance is primary to and will not seek contribution from any other insurance available to an additional insured under your policy provided that: 1) The additional insured is a Named Insured under such other insurance; and 2) You have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that this insurance would be primary and would not seek contribution from any other insurance available to the additional insured. 117 CC 05-06-2025 117 of 554 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 24 04 12 19 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. POLICY NUMBER: CPP-019692-00 CG 24 04 12 19 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2018 Page 1 of 1 WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US (WAIVER OF SUBROGATION) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART ELECTRONIC DATA LIABILITY COVERAGE PART LIQUOR LIABILITY COVERAGE PART POLLUTION LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DESIGNATED SITES POLLUTION LIABILITY LIMITED COVERAGE PART DESIGNATED SITES PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART RAILROAD PROTECTIVE LIABILITY COVERAGE PART UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK POLICY DESIGNATED TANKS SCHEDULE Name Of Person(s) Or Organization(s): Any person or organization when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that you will waive any right of recovery against such person or organization. Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us of Section IV – Conditions: We waive any right of recovery against the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule above because of payments we make under this Coverage Part. Such waiver by us applies only to the extent that the insured has waived its right of recovery against such person(s) or organization(s) prior to loss. This endorsement applies only to the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule above. 118 CC 05-06-2025 118 of 554 Policy #BA-0N492815-23-14-G 119 CC 05-06-2025 119 of 554 Policy #BA-0N492815-23-14-G 120 CC 05-06-2025 120 of 554 Policy #BA-0N492815-23-14-G 121 CC 05-06-2025 121 of 554 Policy #BA-0N492815-23-14-G 122 CC 05-06-2025 122 of 554 5/19/2023BA-0N492815-23- 14-G 123 CC 05-06-2025 123 of 554 23 05-19-23 124 CC 05-06-2025 124 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 1 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (MASTER) WITH TANKO LIGHTING 1. PARTIES This Master Agreement is made by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation City”), and Tanko Lighting (“Consultant”), a Corporation for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects (“Project”), and is effective on the last date signed below Effective Date”). 2. SERVICES 2.1 Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to provide the Services “as needed” and as set forth in the Scope of Services, attached and incorporated here as Exhibit A. The Services must comply with this Agreement and with each Service Order issued under the authority of the City Director of Public Works or his designee, in accordance with the following procedures. Consultant further agrees to carry out its work in compliance with any applicable local, State, or Federal order regarding COVID -19. 2.2 Service Orders. Before issuing a Service Order the City Director of Public Works/Designee will request Services in writing and hold a meeting with Consultant to discuss it. Consultant will submit a written proposal that includes a specific Scope of Services, Schedule of Performance, and Compensation, which the Parties will discuss. Thereafter City Director of Public Works/Designee will execute a Service Order using the Service Order Form attached and incorporated here as Exhibit B. Each Service Order will specify its scope of services, deliverables, schedule of performance, compensation, and any other applicable terms. Issuance of a Purchase Order is discretionary and the Director of Public Works/Designee may streamline these procedures, e.g., conferring by telephone instead of a meeting, if it is in the City’s best interests. Consultant will not be compensated for Services performed without a duly executed Service Order. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1 Term. This Agreement begins on the Effective Date and ends on June 30, 2024 (“Contract Time”), unless terminated earlier as provided herein. The City’s Director of Public Works or City Manager may extend the Contract Time through a written amendment to this Agreement, provided such extension does not include additional contract funds. Extensions requiring additional contract funds are subject to the City’s purchasing policy. 3.2 Schedule of Performance. All Services must be provided within the times specified in each Service Order, and under no circumstances should the Services go beyond the Contract Time. Consultant must promptly notify City of any actual or potential delay in providing the Services as scheduled to afford the Parties adequate opportunity to address or mitigate delays. If the Services are divided by tasks, Consultant must begin work on each separate task upon receiving City’s Notice to Proceed (“NTP”), and must complete each task within the time specified in each Service Order. 125 CC 05-06-2025 125 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 2 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 3.3 Time is of the essence for the performance of all the Services required in this Agreement and in each Service Order. Consultant must have sufficient time, resources and qualified staff to deliver the Services on time. Consultant must respond promptly to the City’s Service Orders and any change orders that may be issued 4. COMPENSATION 4.1 Maximum Compensation. City will pay Consultant for satisfactory performance of the Services a total amount that will based upon actual costs but that will be capped so as not to exceed 175,000.00 (“Contract Price”), based on the budget and rates set forth in Exhibit C, Compensation, attached and incorporated here. The Contract Price includes all expenses and reimbursements and will remain in place even if Consultant’s actual costs exceed the capped amount. No extra work or payment is permitted in excess of the Contract Price. 4.2 Invoices and Payments. City will pay Consultant for Services satisfactorily provided under a Service Order, within thirty (30) days following receipt of a properly submitted in voice for Services provided during the preceding calendar month. Unless otherwise provided by a Service Order, each invoice must include for each day of Services: a. The name of each individual providing Services; b. A succinct summary of the Services performed by each such individual; c. The time spent by each individual providing those Services; d. The applicable hourly billing rate and payment due; and e. A detailed breakdown of all allowable expenses. All hourly rates and allowable expenses must conform to City-approved rates set forth in Exhibit C. 4.3 Final Payment. At least thirty (30) days prior to end of the Agreement, Consultant must submit a requisition for final and complete payment of costs and any pending claims for City approval. Noncompliance with this requirement relieves City of further payments/obligations under the Agreement. 5. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT 5.1 Status. Consultant is an independent Consultant and not an employee, partner, or joint venture of City. Consultant is solely responsible for the means and methods of performing the Services and for the persons hired to work under this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of Consultant’s performance of the Services. Consultant is not entitled to health, workers’ compensation, or other benefits from City. 5.2 Consultant Qualifications. Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and its Subconsultants that they have the qualifications and skills to perform the Services in a competent and professional manner and according to the highest standards and best industry practices for similar services performed in the San Francisco Bay Area. 126 CC 05-06-2025 126 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 3 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 5.3 Permits and Licenses. Consultant warrants on behalf of itself and its Subconsultants that they are properly licensed, registered, and/or certified to perform the Services as required by law and that they have procured a City Business License, if required by the Cupertino Municipal Code. 5.4 Subconsultants. Unless prior written approval from City is obtained, only Consultant’s employees and Subconsultants whose names are included in this Agreement and incorporated Exhibits may provide Services under this Agreement. Consultant must require all Subconsultants to furnish proof of insurance for workers’ compensation, commercial liability, auto, and professional liability in reasonable conformity to the insurance required of Consultant. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on all Subconsultants relative to the portion of their work. 5.5 Tools, Materials, and Equipment. Consultant will supply and shall be responsible for all the tools, materials, and equipment required to perform the Services. 5.6 Payment of Benefits and Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall not have any claim under this Agreement or otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick leave, personal time off, overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits, social security, disability, unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any kind. Consultant shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, fees, contributions, or charges applicable to Consultant’s business including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes. City shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes or benefits on behalf of Consultant. Should any court, arbitrator, or administrative authority, including but not limited to the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), the Internal Revenue Service or the State Employment Development Division, determine that Consultant, or any of its employees, agents, or subcontractors, is an employee for any purpose, then Consultant agrees to a reduction in amounts payable under this Agreement, or to promptly remit to City any payments due by the City as a result of such determination, so that the City’s total expenses under this Agreement are not greater than they would have been had the determination not been made. 5.7 Errors and Omissions. Consultant is solely responsible for its errors and omissions and those of its Subconsultants, and must take prompt measures to avoid, mitigate, and correct them at its sole expense. 6. PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION During the Contract Time, Consultant may have access to private or confidential information owned or controlled by the City, which may contain proprietary or confidential details the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to City. Consultant shall hold in confidence all City information and use it only to perform this Agreement. Consultant shall exercise the same standard of care to protect City information as a reasonably prudent Consultant would use to protect its own proprietary data. 127 CC 05-06-2025 127 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 4 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 7. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS 7.1 Property Rights. Subject to City meeting its payment obligations for the Services, any interest including copyright interests) of Consultant or its Subconsultants in any product, memoranda, study, report, map, plan, drawing, specification, data, record, document, or other information or work, in any medium (collectively, “Work Product”), prepared by Consultant in connection with this Agreement will be the exclusive property of the City upon completion of the work to be performed hereunder or upon termination of this Agreement, to the extent requested by City. In any case, no Work Product shall be shown to any third-party without prior written approval of City. 7.2 Copyright. To the extent permitted by Title 17 of the U.S. Code, all Work Product prepared/created by Consultant and its Subconsultants and all copyrights in such Work Product shall constitute City property. If it is determined under federal law that the Work Product is not “works for hire,” Consultant hereby assigns to City all copyrights to the Work Product when and as created, and shall require Subconsultants to do the same. Consultant may retain copyrights to its standard details, but hereby grants City a perpetual, non-exclusive license to use such details. 7.3 Patents and Licenses. Consultant must pay royalties or license fees required for authorized use of any third party intellectual property, including but not limited to patented, trademarked, or copyrighted intellectual property if incorporated into the Services or Work Product of this Agreement. 7.4 Re-Use of Work Product. Unless prohibited by law and without waiving any rights, City may use or modify the Work Product of Consultant and Subconsultants to execute or implement any of the following, but Consultant shall not be responsible or liable for City’s re-use of Work Product: a) For work related to the original Services for which Consultant was hired; b) To complete the original Services with City personnel, agents or other Consultants; c) To make subsequent additions to the original Services; and/or d) For other City projects. 7.5 Deliverables and Format. Electronic and hard copies of the Work Product constitute part of the Deliverables required under this Agreement, which shall be provided to City on recycled paper and copied on both sides, except for one single-sided original. Large-scale architectural plans and similar items must be in CAD and PDF formats, and unless otherwise specified, other documents must be in Microsoft Office applications and PDF formats. 8. RECORDS 8.1 Consultant must maintain complete, accurate, and detailed accounting records relating to the Services and Compensation, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and procedures. The records must include detailed information about Consultant’s performance, benchmarks and deliverables. The records and supporting documents must be kept separate from other files and maintained for a period of 4 (four) years from the date of City’s final payment. 8.2 City will have free and full access to Consultant’s books and records for review and audit, to 128 CC 05-06-2025 128 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 5 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 make transcripts or copies, and to conduct a preliminary examination of all the work, data, documents , proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. If a supplemental examination or audit of Consultant’s records discloses non-compliance with appropriate internal financial controls, a contract breach, or a failure to act in good faith, City will b e entitled to recover from Consultant the costs of the supplemental examination. This Section 8 survives the expiration/termination of this Agreement. 8.3 Consultant acknowledges that certain documents generated or received by Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement, including but not limited to correspondence between Consultant and any third party, are public records under the California Public Records Act, California Government Code section 6250 et seq. Consultant shall comply with all laws regarding the retention of public records and shall make such records available to the City upon request by the City, or in such manner as the City reasonably directs that such records be provided. 9. ASSIGNMENT Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so will be null and void. Any changes related to the financial control or business nature of Consultant as a legal entity will be considered an Assignment subject to City approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. For purposes of this provision, control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power of the business entity. This Agreement binds Consultant, its heirs, successors and assignees. 10. PUBLICITY / SIGNS Any publicity generated by Consultant in connection with the Project and Services during the Contract Time and for one (1) year thereafter will reference City contributions in making the Project possible. The words “City of Cupertino” shall be displayed in all pieces of publicity, including flyers, press releases, posters, brochures, public service announcements, interviews ,and newspaper articles. No signs may be posted, exhibited, or displayed on or about City property, except signage required by law or this Agreement without prior written approval from City. 11. INDEMNIFICATION 11.1 To the fullest extent allowed by law and except for losses caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of City personnel, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City as follows: a. Indemnity for Design Professional Liability: With respect to the performance of design professional services by a design professional as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers (collectively and/or individually “City”) from and against any and all liabilities, claims, damages, losses, costs, or expenses (including, without limitation, costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert fees of litigation and alternative dispute resolution) of every nature to the extent arising out of, pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant or any of its officers, employees, servants, agents, or subcontractors collectively and/or individually “Consultant”), in the performance of this Agreement or failure to 129 CC 05-06-2025 129 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 6 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 comply with any obligations of the Agreement. If it is finally determined (through a non-appealable judgment or an agreement between City and Consultant) that liability is caused by the comparative negligence or willful misconduct of City, then Consultant’s indemnification and hold harmless obligation shall not exceed Consultant’s finally determined percentage of liability based upon the comparative fault of Consultant. Irrespective of any language to the contrary in this Agreement, the Consultant has no duty to provide or to immediately pay for an up-front defense of City against unproven claims or allegations, but shall reimburse those litigation costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, and expert fees) incurred b y the City to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant. In no event shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant exceed Consultant’s proportional percentage of fault, except as described in Section 2782.8(a) and (e) of the California Civil Code. b. Claims Involving Intellectual Property. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Indemnitees from and against any claim involving intellectual property, infringement, or violation of a United States patent right or copyright, trade secret, trademark, or service mark or other proprietary or intellectual property rights, which arises out of, pertains to, or relates to Consultant’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. Such costs and expenses will include reasonable attorney fees for legal counsel of City’s choice, expert fees, and all other costs and fees of litigation. c. Claims for Other Liability. Except as provided in subsections 11.1(a) and (b), to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall hold harmless, defend (with counsel agreed to by City), and indemnify City and its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers (collectively and/or individually “City”) from and against any and all liability, claim, loss, damage, expense, costs including, without limitation, costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of, related to, or in connection with the performance of work hereunder by Consultant or any of its officers, employees, servants, agents, or subcontractors, or the failure of the same to comply with any of the obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City. Consultant’s duty to defend applies immediately, whether or not liability is established. An allegation or determination that persons other than Contractor are responsible for the claim does not relieve Contractor from its separate and distinct obligation to defend as stated herein. 11.2 Consultant will assist City, at no additional cost, in the defense of any claim, dispute or lawsuit arising out of this Agreement. Consultant’s duties herein are not limited to or subject to the Contract Price, to Workers’ Compensation claims, or to the Insurance or Bond limits and provisions. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give rise to an implied right of indemnity in favor of Consultant against any Indemnitee. 11.3 Consultant agrees to pay the reasonable costs City may incur in enforcing this provision related to Consultant’s indemnification duties, including reasonable attorney fees, fees for legal counsel acceptable to City, expert fees, and all other costs and expenses related to a claim or counterclaim, a purchase order, another transaction, litigation, or dispute resolution. Without waiving any rights, City may deduct money from Consultant’s payments to cover moneys due to City. 130 CC 05-06-2025 130 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 7 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 11.4 Consultant agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this Section 11 from each and every subcontractor, or any other person or entity involved by, for, with, or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. 11.5 This Section 11 shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 12. INSURANCE On or before the Contract Time commences, Consultant shall furnish City with proof of compliance with City Insurance Requirements, attached and incorporated here as Exhibit D. City will not execute the Agreement until it has approved receipt of satisfactory certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the type, amount, class of operations covered, and the effective and expiration dates of coverage. Alternatively, City may terminate this Agreement or in its sole discretion purchase insurance at Consultant’s expense and deduct costs from payments to Consultant. 13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 13.1 General Laws. Consultant shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations applicable to this Agreement. Consultant will promptly notify City of changes in the law or other conditions that may affect the Project or Consultant’s ability to perform. Consultant is responsible for verifying the employment authorization of employees performing the Services, as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or other federal or state law, rule or regulation. 13.2 Labor Laws. Consultant shall comply with all labor laws applicable to this Agreement. If the Services include a “public works” component, Consultant must comply with prevailing wage laws under Labor Code Section 1720 and other labor laws. To the extent applicable, Consultant must comply with City’s Labor Compliance Program, and with state labor laws pertaining to working days, overtime, payroll records and DIR Registration and Oversight. If the Contract Price is $30,000 or more, Consultant must comply with the apprenticeship requirement in Labor Code Section 1777.5. 13.3 Discrimination Laws. Consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, religious creed, color, ancestry, national origin, ethnicity, handicap, disability, marital status, pregnancy, age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, Acquired-Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other protected classification. Consultant shall comply with all anti-discrimination laws, including Government Code Sections 12900 and 11135, and Labor Code Sections 1735, 1777 and 3077.5. Consistent with City policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination, Consultant understands that harassment and discrimination directed toward a job applicant, an employee, a City employee, or any other person is strictly prohibited. Consultant agrees to provide records and documentation to the City on request necessary to monitor compliance with this provision. 13.4 Conflicts of Interest. Consultant shall comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations applicable to this Agreement and must avoid any conflict of interest. Consultant warrants that no public official, employee, or member of a City board or commission who might have been involved in the making of this Agreement, has or will receive a direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement, in 131 CC 05-06-2025 131 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 8 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 violation of California Government Code Section 1090 et seq. Consultant may be required to file a conflict of interest form if Consultant makes certain governmental decisions or serves in a staff capacity, as provided in Section 18700 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations and other laws. Services may only be performed by persons who are not employed by City and who do not have any contractual relationship with City, with the exception of this Agreement. Consultant agrees to abide b y City policies and administrative rules prohibiting gifts to City officials and employees. 13.5 Remedies. A violation of this Section 13 constitutes a material breach and may result in City suspending payments, requiring reimbursement, or terminating this Agreement. City reserves all its rights and remedies under law and this Agreement, including the right to seek indemnification under Section 11. Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless from and against any loss, liability, and expenses arising from noncompliance with this Section. 14. PROJECT COORDINATION 14.1 City Project Manager. The City’s Project Manager for all purposes under this Agreement will be Susan Michael, who shall have the authority to manage this Agreement and oversee the progress and performance of the Services. City in its sole discretion may substitute another Project Manager at any time and will advise Consultant of the new representative. 14.2 Consultant Project Manager. Subject to City approval, the Consultant’s Project Manager for all purposes under this Agreement will be Jason Tanko, who shall be the single representative for Consultant with the authority to manage compliance with this Agreement and oversee the progress and performance of the Services. This includes responsibility for coordinating and scheduling the Services in accordance with City instructions, service orders, and the Schedule of Performance, and providing regular updates to the City’s Project Manager on the Project status, progress, and any delays. City written approval is required prior to Consultant substituting a new Project Manager, which shall result in no additional costs to City or Project delays. 15. ABANDONMENT OF PROJECT City may abandon or postpone the Project with thirty (30) c alendar days’ written notice to Consultant. Consultant will be compensated for satisfactory Services performed through the date of abandonment and will be given reasonable time to assemble the work and close out the Services. No close out work shall be conducted without City reasonable approval of closure costs, which may not exceed ten percent 10%) of the total time expended to the date of abandonment. All charges including job closure costs will be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and within thirty (30) days of Consultant’s final invoice reasonably approved by the City. 16. TERMINATION City may terminate this Agreement for cause or without cause at any time, following reasonable written notice to Consultant at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the termination date. Consultant will be paid for satisfactory Services rendered through the date of termination, but final payment will not be made until Consultant closes out the Services and delivers all Work Product to City. All charges approved by City including job closure costs will be paid within thirty (30) days of Consultant’s final invoice. 132 CC 05-06-2025 132 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 9 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 17. GOVERNING LAW, VENUE, AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of California, excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction. Any lawsuits filed related to this Agreement must be filed with the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Consultant must comply with the claims filing requirements under the Government Code prior to filing a civil action in court. If a dispute arises, Consultant must continue to provide the Services pending resolution of the dispute. If the Parties elect arbitration, the arbitrator’s award must be supported by law and substantial evidence and include detailed written findings of law and fact. 18. ATTORNEY FEES If City files a complaint or cross-complaint, or pursues arbitration, appeal, or other proceeding to enforce its rights or a judgment in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. This attorney fee provision does not apply to legal actions initiated by Consultant or Subconsultant. This Section 18 survives termination of this Agreement. 19. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES There are no intended third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. 20. WAIVER Neither acceptance of the Services nor payment thereof shall constitute a waiver of any contract provision. City’s waiver of any breach shall not be deemed to constitute waiver of another term, provision, covenant or condition, or a subsequent breach, whether of the same or a different character. 21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature between the Parties, and supersedes any other agreements and understandings, either oral or written, between the Parties. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if in writing and signed by each Party’s authorized representative. No verbal agreement or implied covenant will be valid to amend or abridge this Agreement. If there is any inconsistency between any term, clause, or provision of this main Agreement and any term, clause, or provision of the attachments or exhibits thereto, the terms of the main Agreement shall prevail and be controlling. 22. INSERTED PROVISIONS Each contractual provision or clause that may be required by law is deemed to be included and will be inferred in this Agreement. Either party may request an amendment to cure any mistaken insertion or omission of a required provision. 23. HEADINGS The headings in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and in no way affect, limit, or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement. 133 CC 05-06-2025 133 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 10 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 24. SEVERABILITY/PARTIAL INVALIDITY If any term or provision of this Agreement, or their application to a particular situation, is found by the court to be void, invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, such term or provision shall remain in force and effect to the extent allowed by such ruling. All other terms and provisions of this Agreement or their application to specific situations shall remain in full force and effect. 25. SURVIVAL All provisions which by their nature must continue after the Agreement ends, including without limitation those referenced in specific Sections herein, survive this Agreement and shall remain in full force and effect. 26. NOTICES All notices, requests, and approvals must be sent in writing to the persons below, which will be considered effective on the date of personal delivery or the date confirmed by a reputable overnight delivery service, on the fifth calendar day after deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, or the next business day following electronic submission: To City of Cupertino: Office of the City Manager 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Attention: Susan Michael Email: SusanM@cupertino.org To Consultant: Tanko Lighting 220 Bayshore Blvd. San Francisco, CA 94124 Attention: Jason Tanko Email: jason@tankolighting.com 27. EXECUTION The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has full right, power, and authority to enter into and carry out all actions contemplated by this Agreement and that he or she is authorized to execute this Agreement, which constitutes a legally binding obligation of Consultant. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each one of which is deemed an original and all of which, taken together, constitute a single binding instrument. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] 134 CC 05-06-2025 134 of 554 Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects 11 of 11 Design Professional Agr (Master) / October 2021 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed. CITY OF CUPERTINO TANKO LIGHTING A Municipal Corporation By Name Title Date By Name Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: CHRISTOPHER D. JENSEN Cupertino City Attorney ATTEST: KIRSTEN SQUARCIA City Clerk Date Jason Tanko Jason Tanko Chief Executive Officer Jan 3, 2023 Christopher D. Jensen Matt Morley Director of Public Works Jan 3, 2023 Jan 10, 2023 135 CC 05-06-2025 135 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 1 OF 16 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.CONSULTANT)shall provide certain Construction Management and Consulting Services as required and requested by City of Cupertino CITY). CONSULTANT shall provide services under this AGREEMENT on an as needed”basis and only 1)upon written request from CITY’S Director of Public Works or authorized Agent,and 2)as defined in a fully executed Service Order. SECTION 1.GENERAL PROVISIONS A. CONSULTANT shall perform all services to the satisfaction of CITY’S Public Works Director or authorized Agent. B. CONSULTANT shall perform services under this AGREEMENT only by authorization of a fully executed Service Order,which shall clearly provide the nature of the specific services,the time limit within which such services must be completed,and the compensation for such services.CITY shall incorporate each authorized and fully executed Service Order into the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. C. CONSULTANT shall begin work only after receipt of a fully authorized and executed Service Order and shall execute the Project work as detailed in the Service Order. Unauthorized services performed by CONSULTANT shall be at no cost to CITY. D. CITY shall designate a Project Manager for each fully executed Service Order under this AGREEMENT.CONSULTANT shall coordinate the Service Order performance with CITY’S designated Project Manager. E. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the coordination with CITY and federal,state, and local agencies that are necessary for all services authorized under this AGREEMENT. 136 CC 05-06-2025 136 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 2 OF 16 SECTION 2.BASIC SERVICES As authorized by a fully executed Service Order,CONSULTANT shall provide Construction Management and Consulting services for various CITY streetlight related projects in accordance with the following: A.General Performance Requirements For each assigned Project: 1.CONSULTANT shall designate a Project Manager and provide to CITY the names of their team members for the Project.The team members shall be satisfactory to CITY.CONSULTANT shall not substitute any team members without the prior approval of CITY. CITY retains the right to reject team members assigned by CONSULTANT or require replacement of team members. 2.CONSULTANT shall effectively manage its SUBCONSULTANTS,and administer the Project for the efficient,progressive,and proactive delivery of the Project. 3.CONSULTANT shall be responsible for coordinating the work of all subconsultants and contractors,as needed or as directed by the City. 4.CONSULTANT shall consult and coordinate with the CITY,research applicable information,and communicate with members of the Project team. 5.CONSULTANT shall schedule meetings and prepare meeting agendas and minutes for all Project meetings during the term of this AGREEMENT under the scope of work.All minutes of meetings are due to the CITY within five 5)working days after the meeting in a digital format and shall also be provided to other appropriate agencies and entities,as directed by CITY. 6.During the course of work of an assigned Project,CONSULTANT shall meet weekly with CITY’S assigned Project Manager for the respective construction projects to provide an update on the current status of the Project and provide a brief written summary report. B.Specific Performance Requirements 137 CC 05-06-2025 137 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 3 OF 16 For each assigned Project,CONSULTANT may provide any or all of the following tasks and subtasks,as is required for the specific Project: Task 1.0:Pre Construction Phase work may include but is not limited to the following: 1.01 Comprehensive GIS Audit of Existing Streetlights:CONSULTANT shall perform an in field Geographic Information Services GIS)audit of the existing streetlights throughout the CITY.CONSULTANT shall: Work with CITY staff to define audit scope,including priority areas,municipal boundaries,and any areas outside of the right of way that should be included. Develop and provide to CITY staff a list of the attributes that will be collected at each light during the audit. Obtain available CITY and utility records for streetlights from CITY staff and review to determine which should be utilized for the data reconciliation phase. Develop audit maps,scheduling,and dispatch auditors to the field. Audit and collect data on all of the existing inventory and identify attributes on site, including but not limited to): o Global Positioning Service GPS)coordinates latitude,longitude)of each fixture location and date of capture o Fixture type o Lamp type and wattage o Pole material,mounting height,and arm length o Pole ID number o Street width and configuration e.g.,intersection,crosswalk,cul de sac) o Electrical feed overhead,underground) Visible issues e.g.,pole leaning,fixture damage,tree obstruction). Compile audit data weekly and provide a Weekly Audit Report to enable the CITY to identify and address any immediate safety concerns,as well as other issues such as tree trimming that may require attention prior to future maintenance or LED conversion. 1.02 Data Reconciliation:CONSULTANT shall reconcile each asset located in the field with each record in the utility’s billing inventory to ensure that all eligible assets have been identified. CONSULTANT shall identify any discrepancies via a Data Reconciliation Report, which will include the following: o Analysis of locations confirmed during the audit 138 CC 05-06-2025 138 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 4 OF 16 o Analysis of locations appearing in the utility records but not in the confirmed audit records o Analysis of locations confirmed in the audit records but not in the utility records As needed,CONSULTANT shall revisit specific locations to collect additional audit points note this may involve additional costs for the CITY,for which CONSULTANT can provide estimates once the Audit Punch List is developed). CONSULTANT shall inform the CITY beforehand if there is a need for an Audit Punch List as well as potential remedies. 1.03 Design:CONSULTANT shall conduct a constructability review of construction documents for the various projects.The review will include an evaluation of the brand of fixture,photocell,replacement wattages,color temperatures,distribution patterns and other appropriate settings and options to optimize the LED streetlight retrofit. CONSULTANT’s approach to the constructability review may include: Providing typical manufacturer provided photometric renderings based on assumptions,including wattage,distribution type,pole height,spacing etc. Organizing the streetlight infrastructure by roadway classifications such a residential,collector and arterial)and conducting a minimum of three theoretic photometric renderings for replacement fixtures of the CITY’s preferred fixture brands and lines. Developing theoretic photometric renderings for one typical existing fixture per main roadway classification one for residential,one for collector and one for arterial)to demonstrate baseline conditions and aid in fixture and manufacturer selection. Applying standard LED replacement wattage recommendations based on the location of each existing fixture. Coordinating an optional pilot project installation,including selecting appropriate fixture(s)to pilot,identifying locations to pilot in,obtaining fixtures and coordinating with an installer. Reviewing additional data sets upon request and only if there is readily available data)to identify potential areas in need of special consideration such as available data on important localized land uses e.g.parks,schools,hospitals,etc.),pedestrian, vehicle use and crash data,relative volumes of pedestrian and bicycle activity, unique neighborhood characteristics)and incorporating the analysis of the additional data into the recommendations. Selecting appropriate wattages and distribution types for replacement fixtures to meet the CITY’s needs,while maintaining the objective of providing a simplified 139 CC 05-06-2025 139 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 5 OF 16 approach that standardizes inventory so that the system has consistency and can be more easily maintained over time). Applying the CITY’s preferred products,typical models and special considerations to the design maps of the type and wattages by location. Reviewing cost estimate and value engineering for various projects. Presenting the options and total cost/incentives/savings/payback to the CITY and relevant stakeholders has directed by the CITY,and obtaining the CITY’s final approval. Guiding the CITY through how to interpret the photometrics,reviewing how the results indicate the products’spread of light,the distances the fixtures reach,how much back light is present which is wasted light),how much light is distributed directly under the fixture,and the general containment of light in the road/right of way. Providing an interactive map to facilitate the design and construction process. Participation in CITY Council meetings to present findings and answer questions. 1.04 Financing Options:CONSULTANT shall identify and assist with coordinating financing for the project,including identifying third party financing,On Bill utility financing,etc.options. 1.05 Fixture Selection:CONSULTANT shall assist with identifying product options for the CITY,including: Needs Assessment:Conducting initial conversations with the CITY to assess its current knowledge of nuances,options and available products as well as any brand/product preferences and specific needs it may have.CONSULTANT shall present a list of specific questions the CITY during the discussions e.g.cost as a weighted priority and/or fixture specification,and/or twenty year savings,etc.),as well as a matrix of comparative product information by major product brands. Product Recommendations:CONSULTANT shall explore the marketplace for available products that meet the CITY’s needs/interests,and will recommend brands with the following elements considered:Fixture efficiency,light distribution,country of origin,fixture flexibility dimmable drivers,color temperature,shields, distribution types,lighting levels,etc.),product quality Design Lights Consortium listed,proven product,etc.),cost,and historic performance/longevity. 1.06 Bid Documents:CONSULTANT shall assist with installation contractor solicitations by developing appropriate qualifications and requirements via the following approach: 140 CC 05-06-2025 140 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 6 OF 16 Product Submittals:Prepare the product submittals based on the CITY’s preferences and submit for final CITY review and approval. Installation Specifications:Develop the bid documents for the installation/materials bid to ensure they include: o Description of work o Required installation schedule o Reference standards o Submittals o Quality assurance o Warranty o Installation o Field quality control o Adjusting and cleaning o Disposal o Requirements for handling any potential field issues,including no power, missing wire,etc. o Safety standards o Equipment requirements o Licensing/reporting requirements o Pricing requirements/templates o Communication requirements,including pre construction and regular project progress meetings,as well as data collection,training,documentation,and reporting requirements o Minimum qualifications Procurement Coordination:Upon release of the bid,CONSULTANT shall: o Conduct a pre bid conference with prospective bidders. o Develop responses to questions and any necessary addenda documents. o Review bid documents and assist the CITY in evaluation of bidders’Statement of Qualifications for responsible low bidder and assist in analyzing bid protest as may be necessary. o Tabulation and evaluation of bid results.Assist in the evaluation of bid alternatives and make recommendations on award. o Assist in review and processing of substitution submittals during bid and construction phase. 141 CC 05-06-2025 141 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 7 OF 16 Task 2.0:Construction Phase work may include but is not limited to the following: 2.01 Administration and Coordination of Construction:CONSULTANT shall provide administrative,construction management and related services necessary to administer the construction on each assigned project.CONSULTANT shall: Ensure the selected installation contractor stages the receipt of fixture shipments for installation in a manner that ensures the secured storage of materials. Provide the CITY with a schedule of anticipated shipping dates for materials once the materials order is placed. Develop an installation plan that minimizes inconvenience to the CITY and includes ordering schedules,traffic control plans,waste disposal and recycling procedures that comply with all applicable State and Federal laws),and installation and commissioning schedules as required to the CITY. Facilitate a pre construction Kick Off meeting with CITY staff and the installation contractor to review the traffic control plans,work safety,public safety and waste material handling procedures and requirements prior to the start of installation. Coordinate and participate in regularly scheduled construction meetings with CITY staff and contractor.Record,maintain,and distribute minutes thereof. Prior to start of project construction the CONSULTANT and CITY will come to agreement on the format for all project records to be kept and turned over to the CITY at the completion of the project.Documents may be hard copies and/or electronic.CONSULTANT will make recommendations on programs to be used for tracking and other record keeping needs. Develop and implement a procedure for the submittal and processing of submittals with the CITY’s consultants.This shall include preparing and updating logs. Provide preliminary review for completeness and general compliance of submittals that are to be reviewed by the design consultant.Provide review and response for submittals that do not involve the design consultant.Sign and date such submittals with response:Reviewed or Revise and Resubmit. Develop and implement a procedure for timely handling and disposition of the Contractor’s request for information RFI)or clarifications with the design consultant.This shall include preparing and updating logs. Develop and implement a procedure for the timely submittal,processing and tracking of Contract Change Orders CCO),Request for Price Quote RPQ),etc.with the CITY.This shall include preparing and updating logs. Review the Contractor’s comprehensive schedule that establishes a base line and reports the status and progress of the project.The schedule should include details such as milestones and key activities to track project progress.Review the 142 CC 05-06-2025 142 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 8 OF 16 Contractor’s three week look ahead schedule.Verify that schedules conform to the construction contract documents. Work with CITY and Contractor to maintain use of existing facilities that are affected by the construction,to minimize the disruption to the existing facilities and to have their continued use during the construction of the project.This includes all phase of construction and delivery of materials. 2.02 Monitoring of Construction Costs and Progress Payments:CONSULTANT shall: Provide and maintain project level reports for budgeting and contingency tracking; contract payment status;cash flow forecasting and analysis;grant documentation; and other financial reporting as necessary to support the CITY’s accounting needs. CONSULTANT shall maintain records reflecting the actual costs for activities completed or in progress,including records relating to work performed on a unit cost basis and additional work performed by the Contractor on a time and materials basis.CONSULTANT shall monitor and advise the CITY of costs pertaining to potential,pending,and completed changes;and potential or pending claims. Develop a procedure for submittal,review and processing of the progress payments to Contractor,along with associated forms and reporting systems.CONSULTANT shall review progress payment applications and work with Contractor to achieve agreement on the progress payment amount.CONSULTANT will verify that the as built”check set of plans by the Contractor are updated prior to approval of progress payment being submitted to the CITY.CONSULTANT will require Contractor to provide a conditional waiver and release for progress payments and a final release and waiver for the final payment.CONSULTANT will certify that the data in each application for progress payment is to the best of CONSULTANT’s knowledge, information and belief,the work has progressed to the point indicated in the application for progress payment and the quality of the work is generally in accordance with the contract documents.CONSULTANT’s review of application for progress payment shall be undertaken and completed in a timely manner so that the CITY can meet its obligations to make progress payment due Contractor within the time permitted by applicable law without incurring interest liability or other penalties/liabilities.CONSULTANT shall also verify the progress payment satisfies any grant requirement. 2.03 Installation Management:CONSULTANT shall: Ensure that installers are equipped with handheld devices and train them in collecting relevant data on both the existing fixtures being removed,as well as the LED fixtures being installed. 143 CC 05-06-2025 143 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 9 OF 16 Track each crew’s daily progress via time stamped data on every fixture location. Provide immediate instruction to crews on any course corrections necessary. 2.04 Substantial Completion and Final Completion:CONSULTANT shall: Consult with the CITY to jointly ascertain the achievement of substantial completion of the project.If upon inspection of the project substantial completion has not been achieved,the CONSULTANT will assist the CITY in noting the conditions of the work and the measures necessary for the Contractor to achieve substantial completion.Upon determining that the Contractor has achieved substantial completion the CONSULTANT will coordinate the CITY’s final inspection of the work to note punch list items to be completed by the Contractor as a condition to achieve final completion. Assist the CITY in issuing a certificate of substantial completion and final completion,as applicable. 2.05 Progress Records:CONSULTANT shall: Maintain records of the progress of construction of the project,including written progress reports and photographs as agreed upon)reflecting the status of construction and percentage completion of the project.CONSULTANT will maintain daily records during construction of the project showing weather conditions,personnel of the Contractor and Subcontractor at the site,work accomplished,problems encountered and other matters materially affecting the project,completion of the project or construction cost to complete construction of the project.CONSULTANT shall maintain project records for test results and special inspection results. Provide monthly progress reports on the project. 2.06 Site Observations of Project:CONSULTANT shall: CITY and CONSULTANT may agree to the amount of time required to be at the site for observation,however this does not relieve the CONSULTANT from the requirement of having knowledge of the status of the work. Coordinate testing,lab services and inspections,this includes by outside firms. Provide testing and test results by testing firm acceptable to CITY.Such testing services shall be a reimbursable expense as described in Task 3. Maintain at the site the following documents at a minimum:Contract,Drawings, Specifications,approved Change Orders,Submittals,and associated testing or 144 CC 05-06-2025 144 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 10 OF 16 monitoring documentation,other permits,applicable codes,rules and regulation and other written or electronic materials relating to the project. Endeavor to guard the CITY against defects and deficiencies in construction and workmanship of the project on the basis of its site observations,and a quality control program established and implemented hereunder to monitor construction workmanship for conformity:1)accepted industry standards;2)applicable laws, codes,regulations,ordinances or rules:3)and the requirements of the construction documents. Reject work whenever in the ordinary course of discharging its services the CONSULTANT discovers or observes patent conditions of defective or deficient construction and workmanship which as or may have an adverse impact upon the project’s life safety systems or operations,structural elements or integrity of the safety of persons or property.CONSULTANT shall take prompt action appropriate under the circumstances,including stopping the work and thereupon notifying the CITY in writing.CONSULTANT’s responsibilities hereunder shall be limited to defective or deficient work or an apparent or patent nature. Review the Contactor safety program and the requirements of the construction documents and applicable law.CONSULTANT shall monitor the Contractor’s compliance with safety programs and advise the CITY of measures,if any,necessary or appropriate to obtain the Contractor’s compliance.By undertaking the obligation hereunder,CONSULTANT shall not be deemed to have assumed responsibility of the adequacy or sufficiency of safety programs implemented by the Contractor,but the CONSULTANT is responsible for verifying that the Contractor has established a safety program,that the safety program established by the Contractor is in compliance with applicable law,rule or regulation and that the Contractor has implemented its safety program. Promptly notify the CITY in writing of all CONSULTANT observed instances of Contractor’s failure to comply with applicable safety requirements.If in the course of performing services during the construction,the CONSULTANT observes a safety violation or other unsafe condition on or about the site or surrounding area which have an immediate or potential or actual adverse effect on life or property,the CONSULTANT is authorized,without prior notice to the CITY or prior directive by the CITY,to take all actions deemed necessary and appropriate by the CONSULTANT under the then existing circumstances to prevent such actual or potential adverse effect. Become familiar with all CEQA documents and permit requirements from other agencies having jurisdictions over the site or work that will affect the project and the 145 CC 05-06-2025 145 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 11 OF 16 construction site.CONSULTANT shall be responsible for monitoring all aspects of the project as it relates to the requirements.CONSULTANT shall monitor the Contractor’s compliance with all requirements of the CEQA documents and permits by other agencies.CM shall take prompt action appropriate under the circumstances, including stopping the work and thereupon notifying the CITY in writing if Contractor is not following all requirements. 2.07 Contract Change Order CCO)Processing:CONSULTANT shall: Coordinate and disseminate correspondence,drawings and other written materials by and between the Contractor,the CITY and the design consultants relating to changes to the project.CONSULTANT will coordinate the Contractor’s performance of changes authorized by the CITY.CONSULTANT shall maintain a log or other written records to monitor the pendency and disposition of change and CCOs to keep the CITY advised of the status of the same and the actual or potential impact of any particular change or CCO or the cumulative effects thereof on the construction cost or time for completion of construction of the project. Assist the CITY and design consultant in evaluation of requests for the Contactor for issuance of CCOs,assist in negotiations with the Contractor relative to the CCOs proposals and the adjustment of the contract price or the contract time under the construction contract.CONSULTANT will make recommendations to the CITY and the design consultant for handling and disposition of the Contractor’s proposal relative to the changes.If a change to the construction contract is approved or authorized by the CITY,CONSULTANT will assist the CITY and the design consultant in the preparation of a CCO reflecting such approved or authorized change to the construction contract.The CONSULTANT is not authorized,without the prior consent and approval of the CITY,to effectuate or authorize any change to the work of the project.The CONSULTANT shall be liable to the CITY for all direct and consequential costs,losses or damage resulting from the CONSULTANT’s direction or authorization of effectuate a change to the work of the project without the prior direction and authorization by the CITY. 2.08 Claims Handling:CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in the review,evaluation and processing of claims asserted by the Contractor.CONSULTANT will make recommendations to the CITY as to merit,handling and disposition of Contractor’s claims.Except in the event that the CONSULTANT is alleged to have caused or contributed to the circumstances giving rise to a Contractor claim or other Contractor demand for compensation,services of the CONSULTANT to prepare documentation or 146 CC 05-06-2025 146 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 12 OF 16 provide testimony in a mediation,arbitration or judicial proceeding arising out of such a claim or demand for compensation shall be deemed additional services.If the CONSULTANT is alleged to have caused or contributed to a Contractor claim,the CONSULTANT’s claims handling services,including without limitation,claims analysis,assistance in preparing briefs/graphic materials in connection with negotiations or dispute resolution proceeding relating to a Contractor claim shall be deemed part of the CONSULTANT’s basic services under this agreement. 2.09 Consultant Equipment:CONSULTANT shall provide all equipment,furnishings and other items necessary to complete the services required for the project.Including without limitation,computers,related hardware,software,vehicles,cell phones,office equipment and copiers. 2.10 Community Outreach and Notification:CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the CITY’s media office to help develop a community outreach and notification plan prior to the commencement of any project activities.The plan will ensure project awareness and minimize public disturbance.CONSULTANT shall develop the message and provide the schedule to the CITY’s media staff for distribution through the CITY’s existing media outlets press releases,website,etc.). 2.11 Commissioning Coordination:CONSULTANT shall ensure that the installers perform final inspection on all fixtures,correct any punch list”items,test lights to ensure that they work,and identify locations where repair needs CITY assistance.CONSULTANT shall provide a complete commissioning report outlining any errors and actions taken to correct errors. 2.12 Rebate and Tariff Change Coordination:CONSULTANT shall: Research any available rebate programs and facilitate all necessary tasks to ensure that the CITY receives the rebates and billing changes for which it is eligible. Prepare all necessary and required documentation for the rebates and submit these to the appropriate departments within the utility/agency. Follow up with the utility/agency to confirm the materials have been received and are in process. If known,provide the contact information for the utility/agency staff person processing the application for the CITY staff to secure the final payment. Assist the CITY with responses to any utility/agency questions regarding the submitted applications for rebates. 147 CC 05-06-2025 147 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 13 OF 16 Coordinate with the utility on changing tariffs to the newly installed LED fixture rates by preparing the necessary documentation,submitting it to the utility, confirming the materials have been received,and obtaining the timing for the modification to be processed. If known,provide the contact information for the appropriate party addressing any rate changes for the CITY. Assist the CITY with responses to any utility questions regarding the submitted applications for tariff changes. 2.13 Final Reporting:CONSULTANT shall coordinate all final reporting and data requirements to ensure that the CITY considers the project is compliant and complete. This includes finalizing the GIS layer with design and construction data and updating the analysis of gross cost,savings,incentives,net cost,and payback of finalized design, including any operation and maintenance of costs and savings.Additionally, CONSULTANT shall provide contacts and the process whereby the CITY can obtain warranty support with the manufacturer(s)should it be necessary. Task 3.0:Inspections and Testing work may include but is not limited to the following: Conduct routine inspection of the construction work over the course of construction to ensure compliance of the work with the construction contract,including all drawings and specifications. Monitor the contractor’s compliance with required Regulatory Agency Permit inspections and advise CITY of coordination problems and Contractor’s compliance with permit/inspection requirements. Engage the necessary subconsultants to perform the necessary inspections and testing as required for the project.CONSULTANT shall schedule and coordinate with the contractor and subconsultant for the necessary testing and inspection for the project. Compensation to the CONSULTANT for inspections and testing by subconsultant shall be for the actual billed amount only,no mark up or overhead will be allowed for these subcontracted services.CONSULTANT shall bill monthly for actual inspections and testing completed.CONSULTANT shall attach copies of subconsultants’invoice for verification of cost being billed. Task 4.0:Post Construction Phase work may include but is not limited to the following: Receive from the Contractor the closeout documents and items to be submitted by the Contractor under the terms of the Construction Contract upon completion of its obligations under the Construction Contract.The CONSULTANT shall review each 148 CC 05-06-2025 148 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 14 OF 16 Contractor’s closeout submittals to determine conformity with the requirements of the Construction Contract.If the CONSULTANT determines that any Contractor’s closeout submittals are not in conformity with requirements of the construction contract,the CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for measures to secure compliance with the requirements of the construction contract.The CONSULTANT shall deliver to the CITY all of the Contractor’s closeout submittals, including the Contractor’s as build drawings which the CONSULTANT shall transmit to the design consultant for preparation of the record drawings.The CONSULTANT shall monitor the design consultant’s preparation and completion of the project record drawings prior to delivering to the CITY. Within thirty 30)days of the date of issuance of a Certificate of Final Completion for the construction contract,the CONSULTANT shall assemble and deliver to the CITY all of the records maintained by the CONSULTANT relating to the project. Task 5.0:Additional Services CONSULTANT services not specifically identified in the Scope of Services shall be considered Additional Services.At the CITY’S request,CONSULTANT shall provide a fee proposal for specific additional services consistent with the professional rate schedule in Exhibit C. Other Tasks/Services that may be assigned per Project needs: Pole Labeling:A specific number sequence,tag characteristics,material specifications and location on the pole for a CITY pole ID system.This may include a specific label indicating CITY ownership.Typically,a tag recommendation consists of five to seven digits.CONSULTANT can also procure the approved materials and have its field staff or the installation contractor)install them on the poles provided that the installation is system wide and installed on the poles within an arm’s reach). Remedy of Miss Billings:Additional assistance reconciling the streetlight billing discrepancies with the utility to credit the CITY for any miss billings performed 149 CC 05-06-2025 149 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 15 OF 16 either upon completion of the data reconciliation process,or during the final purchase negotiations with the utility. Photometric Overlay:Customized photometric overlays for specific fixture locations within the CITY.Each fixture’s overlay will: o Be an approximation based on theoretical manufacturer representations of the LED replacement fixture note that it will exclude immediate existing conditions). o Consist of a single fixture part number at one fixture location. o Be represented at the location of the existing fixture. Custom Design for Decorative Fixtures:Any decorative fixture beyond the standard design process defined as any non cobra head fixture where the design can be determined through the audit process,or has already been designed)will require a custom LED replacement design,provided on a per custom design created not on a per fixture basis).The work will include the design of the custom LED retrofit, dispatch of a contractor to measure the fixture,design of a custom insert, coordination with a metal fabricator to create a sample,etc. Ownership Feasibility Initialization:CONSULTANT can introduce the CITY to its streetlight ownership Progression Plan,which outlines the path and required steps necessary to prepare for the CITY Council to vote on whether to pursue acquiring ownership of any streetlights not currently owned by the CITY.There are two essential elements in the Progression Plan:the Project Schedule and Protocols: o Project Schedule:This is customized to the CITY’s particular administrative process,including timing for review and approval of documentation,agenda management,Council meetings,closed sessions,etc.The Project Schedule is updated regularly to accommodate the CITY’s timing and project status updates. o Protocols:These Protocols are key to understanding the process.They explain the actions necessary at each stage of the process from initiation to investigation and discovery,moving into negotiations,and ultimately lead to the CITY’s determination of its course of action. Ownership Feasibility Appraisal:CONSULTANT shall utilize a qualified,third party appraiser to complete an appraisal of the non CITY owned streetlight system on behalf of the CITY.The appraiser will provide a financial valuation analysis to confirm the fair market value of the existing streetlight system.Once the appraisal is completed,CONSULTANT shall produce a summary of the results for future use with the Council and/or the potential exploration of the acquisition process.Please note that the appraisal will not consider the overall soundness of every element of the existing system including unseen elements such as wiring issues,equipment integrity,etc.),and therefore CONSULTANT shall not be responsible/liable for any 150 CC 05-06-2025 150 of 554 Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.Exhibit A Scope of Services Construction Management and Consulting PAGE 16 OF 16 future operating costs associated with the soundness of the streetlight system equipment. Streetlight System Analysis:CONSULTANT shall develop a Streetlight System Analysis to outline the CITY’s options regarding potential ownership and operations of streetlights not owned by the CITY. Municipal Process Support:CONSULTANT shall provide comprehensive services to support the CITY in the exploration of its options regarding potentially obtaining ownership of non CITY owned streetlight assets. 151 CC 05-06-2025 151 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO MASTER AGREEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES SERVICE ORDER NO. MASTER AGREEMENT NO#:M.A.Date: Maximum Compensation: Consultant:Firm Name: Address: Contact:Phone: Email:Jason@tankolighting.com Project Name: X City Project Management Managing Department:Public Works Project Manager: Fiscal/Budget Amount 175,000.00 0.00 Minus Liquidated to Date 0.00 0.00 175,000.00 P.O. Contract Manager:John Raaymakers Date: Approvals: Consultant:Date: CIP Manager:Date: Appropriation Certification:I hereby certify that an unexpended appropriation is available in the above fund for the above contract as estimated and that fund are available as of this date of signature City Finance: Date: Management Analyst Total Previously Encumbered to Date: Encumbrance this Service Order: Balance: S.O.Acct No.:Master Agreement Maximum Compensation:175, 000.00 M.A.End Date:Tanko Streetlighting,Inc.220 Bayshore Blvd.,San Francisco,CA 94124 Jason Tanko 415 254 7579 Project Description:See attached Exhibit.Tanko Streetlighting Master Agreement Page 1 of 1Service OrderNo.EXHIBIT B 152 CC 05-06-2025 152 of 554 EXHIBIT C Tanko Streetlighting Hourly Rates Position Hourly Rate Principal 250 Energy Advisor 188 Project Manager 188 Project Associate 156 Data Analyst 156 Auditor 125 153 CC 05-06-2025 153 of 554 Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultants Contracts 1 Form Updated Jan. 2022 Consultant shall procure prior to commencement of Services and maintain for the duration of the contract, at its own cost and expense, the following insurance policies and coverage with companies doing business in California and acceptable to City. INSURANCE POLICIES AND MINIMUMS REQUIRED 1. Commercial General Liability (CGL) for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury liability for premises operations, products and completed operations, contractual liability, and personal and advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence (ISO Form CG 00 01). If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location ( ISO Form CG 25 03 or 25 04) or it shall be twice the required occurrence limit. a. It shall be a requirement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be made available to the Additional Insured and shall be (i) the minimum coverage/limits specified in this agreement; or (ii) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy, whichever is greater. b. Additional Insured coverage under Consultant's policy shall be "primary and non-contributory," will not seek contribution from City’s insurance/self-insurance, and shall be at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 (04/13). c. The limits of insurance required may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance, provided each policy complies with the requirements set forth in this Contract. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self- insurance shall be called upon to protect City as a named insured. 2. Automobile Liability: ISO CA 00 01 covering any auto (including owned, hired, and non-owned autos) with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Workers’ Compensation: As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employer’s Liability Insurance of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury or disease. Not required. Consultant has provided written verification of no employees. 4. Professional Liability for professional acts, errors and omissions, as appropriate to Consultant’s profession, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate. If written on a claims made form: a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the Effective Date of the Contract. b. Insurance must be maintained for at least five (5) years after completion of the Services. c. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the Contract Effective Date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of the Services. OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS The aforementioned insurance shall be endorsed and have all the following conditions and provisions: EXHIBIT D Insurance Requirements Design Professionals & Consultants Contracts 154 CC 05-06-2025 154 of 554 Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultants Contracts 2 Form Updated Jan. 2022 Additional Insured Status The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers Additional Insureds”) are to be covered as additional insureds on Consultant’s CGL and automobile liability policies. General Liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 (11/ 85) or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms, if later editions are used). Primary Coverage Coverage afforded to City/Additional Insureds shall be primary insurance. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute to it. Notice of Cancellation Each insurance policy shall state that coverage shall not be canceled or allowed to expire, except with written notice to City 30 days in advance or 10 days in advance if due to non-payment of premiums. Waiver of Subrogation Consultant waives any right to subrogation against City/Additional Insureds for recovery of damages to the extent said losses are covered by the insurance policies required herein. Specifically, the Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of City for all work performed by Consultant, its employees, agents and subconsultants. This provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At City’s option, either: the insurer must reduce or eliminate the deductible or self-insured retentions as respects the City/Additional Insureds; or Consultant must show proof of ability to pay losses and costs related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. The policy shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the insured or the City. Acceptability of Insurers Insurers must be licensed to do business in California with an A.M. Best Rating of A-VII, or better. Verification of Coverage Consultant must furnish acceptable insurance certificates and mandatory endorsements (or copies of the policies effecting the coverage required by this Contract), and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements prior to commencement of the Contract. City retains the right to demand verification of compliance at any time during the Contract term. Subconsultants Consultant shall require and verify that all subconsultants maintain insurance that meet the requirements of this Contract, including naming the City as an additional insured on subconsultant’s insurance policies. Higher Insurance Limits If Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, City shall be entitled to coverage for the higher insurance limits maintained by Consultant. Adequacy of Coverage City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements/coverage based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer or other special circumstances, with not less than ninety (90) days prior written notice. 155 CC 05-06-2025 155 of 554 CERTIFICATE HOLDER 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CANCELLATION DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE LOCJECT PRO- POLICY GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: OCCURCLAIMS-MADE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES (Ea occurrence)$ DAMAGE TO RENTED EACH OCCURRENCE $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ RETENTIONDED CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR AGGREGATE $ EACH OCCURRENCE $UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD/YYYY) POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY)LIMITS WC STATU- TORY LIMITS OTH- ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below Mandatory in NH) OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS AUTOS AUTOS COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR ADDL WVD SUBR N / A Ea accident) Per accident) THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: INSURED PHONE A/C, No, Ext): PRODUCER ADDRESS: E-MAIL FAX A/C, No): CONTACT NAME: NAIC # INSURER A : INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. X 25674 25674 X 28860 28860 X X X A D 1,000, 000 LIC #0M77949 LIC #0M77949 1,000, 000 10,000 XX Cupertino City Hall City of Cupertino 67237183 67237183 San Francisco, CA 94124 San Francisco, CA 94124 4,000, 000 AE212964 10300 Torre Avenue 408- 550-2119 408-550-2119 USA 1,000, 000 12/ 05/2022 12/05/2022 X X X X 4,000, 000 300, 000 UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON HOMESITE INS CO HOMESITE INS CO AR01-RS-2204380-00 TRAVELERS PROP CAS CO OF AMER TRAVELERS PROP CAS CO OF AMER Clear Blue Insurance Co Clear Blue Insurance Co maggi12 C 05/ 19/ 23 X Professional Each/Aggregate 05/ 19/ 23 1,000, 000 X Cupertino, CA 95014 McSherry & Hudson, LLC Insurance Services McSherry & Hudson, LLC Insurance Services B 2,000, 000 X 1,000, 000 Suite 715 Suite 715 05/ 19/ 22 160 West Santa Clara Street 160 West Santa Clara Street 05/ 19/ 22 220 Bayshore Blvd. 220 Bayshore Blvd. 05/ 19/ 23 Y 1,000, 000 BA-0N492815-22- 14-CAG B DBA: Tanko Lighting DBA: Tanko Lighting Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. 05/ 19/ 22 2,000,000 San Jose, CA 95113 San Jose, CA 95113 UB-5K373797-22- 14-G 05/ 19/ 22 408- 550-2130 408-550-2130 05/ 19/ 22 05/ 19/ 23 1-888- 845-2248 1-888- 845-2248 2,000, 000 CXS-137943905-01 1 1 05/ 19/ 23 The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers Additional Insured per written contract: 15792 15792 RE: Master Agreement for Construction Management 17221 17221 156 CC 05-06-2025 156 of 554 SUPP (05/04) SUPPLEMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DATE NAME OF INSURED: Additional Description of Operations/Remarks from Page 1: Additional Information: DBA: Tanko Lighting Tanko Street Lighting, Inc. Additional Insured and Waiver of Subrogation per attached form CAT3530215. Automobile Liability: Waiver of Subrogation per attached form CG24040509. Per Project Aggregate per attached from CG25030509. Primary Wording per attached form CG20010413. Additional Insured per attached form CG20371001 and CG20101001. General Liability: Includes: 12/05/2022 Waiver of Subrogation per attached form WC990376A001. Workers Compensation: Primary Wording per attached form CA00011013. 157 CC 05-06-2025 157 of 554 158 CC 05-06-2025 158 of 554 AR01-RS-2204380-00 159 CC 05-06-2025 159 of 554 160 CC 05-06-2025 160 of 554 161 CC 05-06-2025 161 of 554 162 CC 05-06-2025 162 of 554 163 CC 05-06-2025 163 of 554 22 164 CC 05-06-2025 164 of 554 22 165 CC 05-06-2025 165 of 554 22 166 CC 05-06-2025 166 of 554 22 167 CC 05-06-2025 167 of 554 22 168 CC 05-06-2025 168 of 554 22 05- 18- 22 169 CC 05-06-2025 169 of 554 Third Amendment to Tanko Lighting for Construction Management and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects Final Audit Report 2025-02-13 Created:2025-02-05 By:Webmaster Admin (webmaster@cupertino.org) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAaMI1Bk7JwJOQfEHc9ZPe-NNtDp5IMrDa Third Amendment to Tanko Lighting for Construction Managem ent and Consulting Services for Various CIP Projects" History Document created by Webmaster Admin (webmaster@cupertino.org) 2025-02-05 - 5:23:39 PM GMT- IP address: 35.229.54.2 Document emailed to Jindy Gonzalez (jindyg@cupertino.org) for approval 2025-02-05 - 6:00:59 PM GMT Email viewed by Jindy Gonzalez (jindyg@cupertino.org) 2025-02-05 - 6:01:26 PM GMT- IP address: 3.232.50.116 Document approved by Jindy Gonzalez (jindyg@cupertino.org) Approval Date: 2025-02-05 - 7:32:19 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165.34.3 Document emailed to Araceli Alejandre (aracelia@cupertino.org) for approval 2025-02-05 - 7:32:31 PM GMT Email viewed by Araceli Alejandre (aracelia@cupertino.org) 2025-02-05 - 7:32:39 PM GMT- IP address: 3.232.50.116 Document approved by Araceli Alejandre (aracelia@cupertino.org) Approval Date: 2025-02-05 - 10:30:09 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165.34.3 Document emailed to jason@tankolighting.com for signature 2025-02-05 - 10:30:26 PM GMT Email viewed by jason@tankolighting.com 2025-02-05 - 10:56:15 PM GMT- IP address: 74.125.209.2 170 CC 05-06-2025 170 of 554 Signer jason@tankolighting.com entered name at signing as Jason Tanko 2025-02-06 - 6:31:39 PM GMT- IP address: 50.211.197. 209 Document e-signed by Jason Tanko (jason@tankolighting.com) Signature Date: 2025-02-06 - 6:31:41 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 50.211.197.209 Document emailed to Christopher Jensen (christopherj@cupertino.org) for signature 2025-02-06 - 6:31:53 PM GMT Email viewed by Christopher Jensen (christopherj@cupertino.org) 2025-02-06 - 6:32:01 PM GMT- IP address: 52.202.236. 132 Email viewed by Christopher Jensen (christopherj@cupertino.org) 2025-02-12 - 5:37:03 PM GMT- IP address: 3.232.50.116 Signer Christopher Jensen (christopherj@cupertino.org) entered name at signing as Christopher D. Jensen 2025-02-12 - 5:40:59 PM GMT- IP address: 64.165.34.3 Document e-signed by Christopher D. Jensen (christopherj@cupertino.org) Signature Date: 2025-02-12 - 5:41:01 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165.34.3 Document emailed to Pamela Wu (pamelaw@cupertino.org) for signature 2025-02-12 - 5:41:12 PM GMT Email viewed by Pamela Wu (pamelaw@cupertino.org) 2025-02-12 - 5:41:18 PM GMT- IP address: 3.232.50.116 Document e-signed by Pamela Wu (pamelaw@cupertino.org) Signature Date: 2025-02-13 - 5:03:24 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 67.160.222.130 Document emailed to Kirsten Squarcia (kirstens@cupertino.org) for signature 2025-02-13 - 5:03:36 AM GMT Email viewed by Kirsten Squarcia (kirstens@cupertino.org) 2025-02-13 - 5:03:58 AM GMT- IP address: 52.202.236. 132 Document e-signed by Kirsten Squarcia (kirstens@cupertino.org) Signature Date: 2025-02-13 - 5:16:29 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 174.194.140.183 Agreement completed. 2025-02-13 - 5:16:29 AM GMT 171 CC 05-06-2025 171 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13918 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 9. Subject:Approval of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on the Transition of Multiple- Family Use Housing to Student Housing within a One Half Mile Radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino; or approval of a Resolution Encouraging the Building of Newly Constructed Student Housing and Preventing the Conversion of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing within the City of Cupertino. Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Open and conduct a public hearing to consider the attached interim urgency ordinance; and 2a. Waive further reading and adopt, by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the City Council, the attached interim urgency Ordinance No. 25-2270 by title only (the same to take effect immediately upon adoption), entitled, “An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, California, Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code section 65858 Establishing a 45-Day Temporary Moratorium on the Transition of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing Within One Half Mile Radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino During the Pendency of the City’s Review and Adoption of Permanent Zoning Regulations for Such Uses”; or 2b. Adopt Resolution No. 25-025 Encouraging the Building of Newly Constructed Student Housing and Preserving Multiple-Family Use Housing By Preventing the Conversion of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing Within the City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™172 CC 05-06-2025 172 of 554 01276.0005 1071337.5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MAY 6, 2025 Subject Approval of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on the Transition of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing within a One Half Mile Radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino; or approval of a Resolution of the City Council Encouraging the Building of Newly Constructed Student Housing and Preventing the Conversion of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing within the City of Cupertino. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Open and conduct a public hearing to consider the attached interim urgency ordinance; and 2a. Waive further reading and adopt, by a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the City Council, the attached interim urgency ordinance by title only (the same to take effect immediately upon adoption), entitled, “An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, California, Enacted Pursuant to California Government Code section 65858 Establishing a 45-Day Temporary Moratorium on the Transition of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing Within One Half Mile Radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino During the Pendency of the City’s Review and Adoption of Permanent Zoning Regulations for Such Uses;” or 2b. Approve the attached resolution entitled, “Resolution of the City Council Encouraging the Building of Newly Constructed Student Housing and Preventing the Conversion of Multiple-Family Use Housing to Student Housing within the City of Cupertino.” At the April 2, 2025 City Council meeting the City Council first learned from residents of McClellan Terrace that more than 90 families, with over 60 children and youths, would be displaced if the District acquires McClellan Terrace and converts it to student housing for its student population. At that meeting, the City Council learned that District had entered into a purchase agreement with the current owner of the building. The City 173 CC 05-06-2025 173 of 554 01276.0005 1071337.5 Council then unanimously approved a study session to consider generally the conversion of multiple-family use housing to student housing. In furtherance of the City’s Housing Element contained in the General Plan, the District should be building new housing for its students that need housing rather than seeking to convert existing multiple-family housing to student housing. The District has, in fact, now stated that it intends to convert McClellan Terrace into student housing. As such, the District plans to displace all of the current residents, who will be required to move out, either upon the expiration of their 12-month leases, or sooner, but all would receive a minimum of 120 days’ notice to vacate. The proposal raised immediate concerns from the families to be displaced, many with school-age children and youths attending nearby Abraham Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle School, and Monte Vista High School. At the April 2, 2025 City Council meeting, residents living at McClellan Terrace, and many others from the surrounding community and greater City area, expressed deep concern regarding the loss of the residents’ community, social ties, and stable living environment for themselves, their children, and their neighbors, which would be the result. This also raises serious concerns about displacing longtime residents in a City already facing a shortage of rental housing. The City has long recognized the importance of protecting families and other residents from displacement, as reflected in the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, which emphasizes that “new housing sites should avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents” (see Appendix B (Housing Element) of the General Plan at B-21), causing both the loss of homes and critical community support networks. To prevent the displacement of long-term residents, the City of Cupertino has historically adopted policies that limit housing conversions which could reduce affordability or availability. (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(a).) For example, the City’s Municipal Code states “[i]n no case shall an apartment project be converted to a common interest development unless and until it can reasonably be demonstrated that comparable replacement housing exists within the housing market area to accommodate those residents displaced as a direct result of the proposed conversion.” (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(a).) It further states that “[n]o conversion of apartment houses . . . to common interest developments shall be permitted unless and until the City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that the proposed conversion will not conflict with the housing goals and policies of the General Plan and will not adversely impact the local school system.” (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(2).) While common interest developments are not student housing, this example demonstrates the City’s longstanding commitment to protecting existing residents from displacement. 174 CC 05-06-2025 174 of 554 01276.0005 1071337.5 In line with this commitment to housing stability, and based on the Housing Element, General Plan, and past regulations, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt an interim urgency ordinance temporarily prohibiting the conversion of multi-family housing to student housing. Reasons for Recommendation The City should be encouraging the building of new housing, including encouraging institutions of higher education located within or near its boundaries to prioritize the development of new student housing to meet the growing demand for student accommodations rather than displacing families to transition the multiple-family housing stock to student housing. In fact, the City’s failure to protect multiple-family housing for families and other long- term residents could further reduce the availability of permanent housing options, negatively impacting overall housing stability. According to the California Department of Finance E-5 Report (2024), Cupertino’s housing unit vacancy rate was 5%, compared to the statewide rate of 6.4%. This lower vacancy rate indicates tighter housing availability in the City, supporting the conclusion that residents already face limited housing choices. Moreover, rent in the City is significantly higher than in most communities and according to Zillow is 81% higher than the national average. As of April 24, 2025, 103 total units were listed for rent on Zillow for the entire City. Of these, only 70 multiple- family units were available, ranging from $1,300/month to $6,810/month. With a population in the City of approximately 58,000 people, (US Census Bureau) this means that a single multiple-family unit is only available for less than 5% of community members. In addition, land, environmental, and infrastructure constraints combine to keep prices high. Although the City of Cupertino is doing what it can to facilitate the development of new multiple-family housing, it also must take steps to preserve existing multiple-family housing. The City’s current regulatory environment towards the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing will: 1) result in the loss of essential housing, including rental housing, for families and others within the City, 2) displace current tenants, including families and families with school-age children and youth currently enrolled in local public schools, 3) disrupt established relationships between and among families and friends residing in the multiple-family use building or nearby residences who may be unable to find alternate housing within the neighborhood, school district, or even within the City, 4) encourage the loss of multiple-family use housing in favor of student housing, 5) potentially increase the commute distance to and from work for tenants displaced by student housing potentially increasing Greenhouse Gas emissions; and 6) reduce the incentive for institutions of higher learning to build new student housing to accommodate the needs of the institutions’ students for local housing. 175 CC 05-06-2025 175 of 554 01276.0005 1071337.5 Providing for a diverse range of housing types is an important consideration in any community. A diverse range of housing types helps ensure that all households in a community, regardless of income level, size, age, and family type, have the ability to find adequate housing that meets their needs, including K-12 schools for children and youths. The need to preserve existing multiple-family housing is especially acute due to the limited availability of other housing types. For example, according to Redfin.com the median sale price of a home in Cupertino was $2,493,950 in February 2025. This places home ownership out of reach for many members of the community, resulting in a greater need for safe and affordable multiple-family rental housing. Moreover, converting existing multiple-family housing to student housing or similar uses is intertwined with the loss of housing choices and the risk of displacement. It exerts upward pressure on rents, forcing families to pay a greater proportion of household income on rent, which creates a strain on household finances. It also increases the likelihood that households will be forced to move out of the area when housing stock is converted to other uses. When households are displaced due to rising rents or the lack of available housing, it disrupts community stability, increases stress and anxiety among residents, results in longer commute times and greater traffic impacts as workers are forced to live farther from their jobs, and adversely affects the educational continuity and opportunities for children and youth. The shortage of multiple-family housing supply, combined with rising rents, heightens the risk of housing insecurity and further disenfranchises the unhoused. Based on these concerns about the likely unintended consequences, as well as the findings provided in the attached interim urgency ordinance, staff is proposing that the City Council pass the interim urgency ordinance, which temporarily prohibits the conversion of multiple-family use housing to student housing, as defined in the attached interim urgency ordinance within a one half mile radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College for an initial period of 45 days. This initial period will allow staff time to review, study, and potentially revise the Cupertino Zoning Ordinance or other City planning documents and rules as they relate to these uses. State Planning and Zoning Law empowers the City to plan for and regulate the use of land to provide for orderly development. State law further authorizes the City Council to adopt an ordinance for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety and to prohibit a use that conflicts with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. Municipal Code section 19.04.020 gives authority to the City of Cupertino to establish comprehensive zoning regulations to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community. 176 CC 05-06-2025 176 of 554 01276.0005 1071337.5 The proposed interim urgency ordinance would be effective for an initial period of 45 days. Staff anticipates providing a written report 10 days prior to the expiration of the interim urgency ordinance. The City Council would then have the option to extend the interim urgency ordinance for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days to allow for any permanent ordinance or amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance or other City planning documents or rules to be adopted. Any extension would require a 4/5ths vote of the entire City Council. Both staff and the City Attorney will be available to respond to questions regarding the City Council’s consideration of this matter at the public hearing. Available Options 1. Approve the interim urgency ordinance to allow staff time to study and perhaps develop an appropriate zoning ordinance to ensure that much needed multiple-family use housing is not converted to student housing and the building of newly construction student housing is encouraged. 2. Approve the resolution encouraging the building of newly constructed student housing and directing staff to press forward with studying options to prevent such transitions in the future to both encourage the development of new student housing and retain current multiple-family use housing. 3. If the City Council determines there are issues which should be addressed prior to taking any action on this item, the Council should continue this action and instruct staff to resolve those issues. 4. Do nothing. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact The cost associated with preparing the permanent zoning ordinance. City Work Program Item and Item Description This is not a City Work Program item. Council Goal To preserve Multiple-Family Housing with the City of Cupertino. California Environmental Quality Act In accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this action is statutorily exempt. Further, even if a project, it is clear 177 CC 05-06-2025 177 of 554 01276.0005 1071337.5 that the proposed moratorium Ordinance will not create an environmental impact as it preserves existing conditions, and is therefore exempt from CEQA review. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Vrunda Shah, Deputy City Attorney John Fox, Assistant City Attorney Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney Reviewed by: Bejamin Fu, Community Development Director Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A – Moratorium Radius Map B – Draft Ordinance C – Draft Resolution 178 CC 05-06-2025 178 of 554 179 CC 05-06-2025 179 of 554 1 ORDINANCE NO. __________________ AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, ENACTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 ESTABLISHING A 45-DAY TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE TRANSITION OF MULTIPLE-FAMILY USE HOUSING TO STUDENT HOUSING WITHIN A ONE HALF MILE RADIUS OF FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CITY’S REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PERMANENT ZONING REGULATIONS FOR SUCH USES The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino (“City”) has the authority, under its police power, to enact regulations for the public peace, morals, and welfare of the City pursuant to its California Constitution Article XI, section 7; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City of Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.04.020, the City has the authority to establish comprehensive zoning regulations to create a convenient, attractive, and harmonious community, and is responsible for adopting and implementing land use regulations within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has been informed that the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (“District”) is currently under contract to purchase McClellan Terrace Apartments (“McClellan Terrace”), a multiple-family use residential building that houses approximately ninety-four (94) families, with the intent to convert the property from multiple-family use housing to student housing, as defined below, and the closing of that transaction, with title transfer could occur at any time; and WHEREAS, if the sale of McClellan Terrace closes and the District takes title to the apartment community, the District has stated that it will transition the apartment community to some form of student housing, as defined below, whereby current tenants will be displaced, such that tenants holding 12-month lease agreements will be forced to vacate their apartment homes upon the expiration of their leases, and tenants on month-to-month leases will be forced to vacate when their lease is up, but not earlier than 120 days from the date of the notice to vacate; and WHEREAS, at the April 2, 2025 City Council meeting, tenants residing at McClellan Terrace, as well as many other community members expressed great concern about the 180 CC 05-06-2025 180 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 2 displacement of 94 families, including approximately 60 school-age children and youth, highlighting the potential for significant community disruption and hardship; and WHEREAS, many if not all of the school-age children and youth to be displaced by this forced transfer from their home at McClellan Terrance attend the nearby schools of Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School, all high-performing schools; and WHEREAS, the current threat of displacing residents at McClellan Terrace raises broader concerns regarding further loss of multiple-family use housing and potential displacement of renters within the City, and demonstrates the need for further studies evaluating the adoption of regulations prohibiting such conversions to student housing; and WHEREAS, the City has long recognized the importance of protecting families and other residents from displacement, as reflected in the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, which emphasizes that “new housing sites should avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents,” with displacement being a significant concern, particularly for low- and moderate-income residents, and causing the loss of both homes and critical community support networks; and WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted regulations in Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.116 to address the harms associated with the conversions of multiple- family use housing by prohibiting most conversions of apartment projects to common interest developments, unless and until it can reasonably be demonstrated that comparable replacement housing exists within the housing market area within a similar price range (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(a).); and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.116 further forbids such conversions when “the vacancy rate for apartment houses within the housing market area is less than five percent at the time at the time of application and has averaged five percent over the past six months…” (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(e).); and WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving housing, including multiple-family rental housing within the City by regulating the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing, and thereby preventing the loss of multiple-family housing within City limits and preventing displacement of City residents; and 181 CC 05-06-2025 181 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 3 WHEREAS, today the City has no standards or regulations applicable to the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing and the impacts of such on the welfare of the City’s citizens, residents, visitors and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City’s permissive regulatory environment towards the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing will: 1) result in the loss of essential housing, including rental housing, for families and others within the City, 2) displace current tenants, including families and families with school-age children and youth currently enrolled in local public schools, 3) disrupt established relationships between and among families and friends residing in the multiple-family use building or nearby residences who may be unable to find alternate housing within the neighborhood, school district or even within the City, 4) encourage the loss of multiple -family use housing in favor of student housing, 5) potentially increase the commute distance to and from work for tenants displaced by student housing potentially increasing Greenhouse Gas emissions; and 6) reduce the incentive for institutions of higher learning to build new student housing to accommodate the needs of the institutions’ students for local housing; and WHEREAS, the City encourages institutions of higher education located within or near its boundaries to prioritize the development of new on-campus student housing to meet the growing demand for student accommodation; and WHEREAS, the transfer of McClellan Terrace to the District, a public entity, along with the transition to student housing, will have substantial negative financial consequences for the City because the new owner, the District—a public entity—is exempt from paying assessed property tax, yet at the same time the population of McCellan Terrace will increase substantially with the new student housing use, resulting in greater use of City services at a greater cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to prioritizing the development of new housing, including student housing, rather than permitting the conversion of existing multifamily housing to student housing; and WHEREAS, the City’s failure to protect multiple-family use housing for families and others within the City could add to the shortage of permanent housing options within the City, impacting the City’s population; and WHEREAS, the rental housing market is tight, with low vacancy rates in the greater Santa Clara Valley region, including the City. The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a regional report finding vacancy rates at 4% in 2020; and 182 CC 05-06-2025 182 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 4 WHEREAS, absent clear regulation, the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing within the City poses a threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and unless the City takes regulatory action to curtail such transition, the impacts described above are likely to occur; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds and determines that permitting the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing would have a current, immediate and specific adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated within the meaning of Government Code Section 65858(c) and/or (h); and WHEREAS, California Government Code sections 36934, 36937 and 65858 expressly authorize the City Council to adopt an interim urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety and to prohibit a use that is in conflict with a contemplated General Plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City, its Planning Commission or the Community Development Department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the City is aware of other cities in the area and region that have developed ordinances to manage or eliminate the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing, which could be good models for the City and City staff to study, but the City and City staff need time to study these ordinances and issues and develop appropriate regulations consistent with the City’s unique needs, as well as State and federal law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described express statutory authority and its police power, the City Council desires, on an urgency basis, to temporarily prohibit the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing within a one half mile radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing, which was noticed on April 25, 2025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-described express authority and its police power, the City Council desires, on an urgency basis, to temporarily prohibit the transition of the multiple-family use housing to student housing within a one half mile radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 183 CC 05-06-2025 183 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 5 SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates the same herein as if set forth in full. SECTION 2: Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. There exists a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, such that this interim urgency ordinance is necessary to mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impacts identified in the foregoing recitals incorporated herein, and as follows, such that there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified specific, adverse impacts with a less burdensome or restrictive effect, than the adoption of this proposed interim urgency ordinance. B. Government Code section 65580 states: “[t]he availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.” California is experiencing a housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply. In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing per capita. This lack of housing supply in California has led to dramatically increasing housing costs across the State. C. Rent in the City of Cupertino is significantly higher than in most communities and according to Zillow is 81% higher than the national average. Renters make up 40% of all households in the City. (See Cupertino General Plan, Housing Element, p. H-6.) As of April 24, 2025, 103 total units were listed for rent on Zillow for the entire City. Of these, only 70 multiple-family units were available, ranging from $1,300/month to $6,810/month. With a population in the City of over 57,000 people, this means that a single multiple-family unit is only available for every 770 members of the community (less than 0.05%). In addition, land, environmental, and infrastructure constraints combine to keep land prices high. Although the City of Cupertino is doing what it can to facilitate the development of new multiple-family housing, it also must take steps to preserve existing multiple-family housing. D. Providing for a diverse range of housing types is an important consideration in a community. A diverse range of housing types helps ensure that all 184 CC 05-06-2025 184 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 6 households in a community, regardless of income level, size, age, and family type, have the ability to find adequate housing that meets their needs, including K-12 schools for children and youths. This is consistent with the City’s housing element goals of conserving housing stock and preserving multifamily housing in the City. (See Cupertino General Plan, Housing Element Goal HE-3, Stable and physically sound residential neighborhoods, and Strategy HE-3.3.4, Multifamily Housing preservation Program.) E. The need to preserve existing multiple-family housing is especially acute due to the limited availability of other housing types. For example, according to Redfin.com the median sale price of a home in Cupertino was $2,493,950 last month. This places home ownership out of reach for many members of the community, resulting in a greater need for safe and affordable multiple-family rental housing. According to the California Department of Finance E-5 Report, 2024, the City’s housing unit vacancy rate in 2024 was 5%. Comparing that to the statewide housing unit vacancy rate of 6.4% demonstrating that housing choice is quite limited in Cupertino. F. Cupertino needs to retain its multiple-family housing. The conversion of existing multi-family housing to student housing and similar uses is inextricably intertwined with the loss of multi-family uses and the risk of displacement. The loss of multi-family housing increases rents, forces families to pay a disproportionate amount of household income on rent, and creates a strain on household finances. It also increases the likelihood that households will be forced to move out of the area if such housing stock is converted to other uses. If households are forced to move out due to increased rents or unavailability of units, this can lead to loss of community, stress and anxiety for those forced to relocate, increased commute times and traffic impacts if displaced workers cannot find affordable housing within the City, and the interruption of the education of children and youths in the home. G. A lack of affordable multi-family housing supply and rising rents additionally increase the risk that more households will become homeless and add further barriers that prevent homeless individuals and families from finding permanent housing. H. When people have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more resources for food and health care, are less likely to need government subsidized 185 CC 05-06-2025 185 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 7 services, their children do better in school, and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees. SECTION 3: Moratorium. During the effective period of this interim urgency ordinance, the conversion of multiple-family use to student housing within a one half mile radius of Foothill-De Anza Community College in the City of Cupertino is prohibited. Section 19.08 (M) of the Cupertino Municipal Code defines “multiple-family use” as the “use of a parcel for three or more dwelling units which may be in the same building or in separate buildings on the same parcel.” “Student Housing” here is defined as a living space for students of accredited post- secondary educational institutions that may take the form of dwelling units, group housing, or single room occupancy Units that are owned, operated, or otherwise controlled by one or more accredited post-secondary educational institutions. Student Housing includes: a. Student Apartments – Off-campus or on-campus apartments with multiple bedrooms, often rented by groups of students. These units may include shared living spaces such as kitchens and bathrooms; and b. Fraternity or Sorority Houses – Private, Greek-letter organization-owned homes that houses members of fraternities or sororities, often located near campuses and usually containing a mix of residential and social spaces; and c. Graduate Student Housing – Residential spaces designed specifically for graduate students, which may be more private or include family-friendly units, located on or near the campus; and d. Off-Campus Housing – Residential accommodations rented by students living independently from the university. This includes houses, apartments, condos, or shared living spaces, often located near the university; and e. Single Room Occupancy Units – A form of housing that provides students with individual rooms, often with shared common areas like kitchens and bathrooms. These may be located on or near campus or in surrounding neighborhoods; and 186 CC 05-06-2025 186 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 8 f. University-Owned Apartments for Families – Apartments provided by universities for students with families. These units typically offer more space and family-friendly amenities and may be located off-campus or within university housing complexes; and g. International Student Housing – Specialized housing for international students who require specific accommodations, potentially including language support, cultural programs, or more integrated living spaces. SECTION 4: Review and Study. During the period of this interim urgency ordinance, the City shall study and develop as necessary City laws, rules, procedures and fees related to the use of student housing and multiple-family units, to enable the City to adequately and appropriately preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community in the City of Cupertino. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, the Director of Planning will issue a report for the legislative body on what has been accomplished during the moratorium period before it is extended. SECTION 5. Urgency Measure. This interim urgency ordinance is needed for the preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, as among others, it will allow the City time to study how to avoid and prevent potential conflicts between multiple-family use housing and student housing uses resulting from insufficient buffers between such uses, as well as additional impacts identified in the recitals. SECTION 6. Urgency Measure. This interim urgency Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this interim urgency Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed interim urgency ordinance would have no or 187 CC 05-06-2025 187 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 9 only a de minimis effect on the environment because it preserves existing conditions, and is therefore exempt from CEQA review. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment. SECTION 7. Authority and Effect. This interim urgency ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City Council by California Government Code section 65858 and take full force and effect immediately upon its adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire City Council as if, and to the same extent that, such interim urgency Ordinance had been adopted pursuant to each of the individual sections set forth herein above. SECTION 8. Effectiveness of Ordinance. This interim urgency ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by a 4/5 vote, pursuant to the authority conferred upon the City Council by California Government Code section 65858. This interim urgency ordinance shall be of no further force and effect forty-five (45) days following the date of its adoption unless extended in accordance with the provisions set forth in California Government Code section 65858. Not later than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this interim urgency ordinance, the City Council shall issue a written report as required by California Government Code section 65858(d). SECTION 9. Severability. If any provision of this interim urgency ordinance or the application thereof to any persons or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this interim urgency ordinance, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and to this end the provisions of this interim urgency ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 10. Publication. The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance. 188 CC 05-06-2025 188 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 10 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on May 6, 2025 and ENACTED at a regular of the Cupertino City Council on this _______ day of ________, 2025 by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ______________________ Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino ________________________ Date ATTEST: _______________________ Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk ________________________ Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Floy Andrews, City Attorney ________________________ Date 189 CC 05-06-2025 189 of 554 Attachment A – Page 1 190 CC 05-06-2025 190 of 554 01276.0005 2001695.1 RESOLUTION NO. 25-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENCOURAGING THE BUILDING OF NEWLY CONSTRUCTED STUDENT HOUSING AND PRESERVING MULTIPLE- FAMILY USE HOUSING BY PREVENTING THE CONVERSION OF MULTIPLE-FAMILY USE HOUSING TO STUDENT HOUSING WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO WHEREAS, the City has been informed that the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (“District”) is currently under contract to purchase McClellan Terrace Apartments (“McClellan Terrace”), a multiple-family use residential building that houses approximately ninety-four (94) families, with the intent to convert the property from multiple-family use housing to student housing, as defined below, and the closing of that transaction, with title transfer could occur at any time; and WHEREAS, if the sale of McClellan Terrace closes and the District takes title to the apartment community, the District has stated that it will transition the apartment community to some form of student housing, as defined below, whereby current tenants will be displaced, such that tenants holding 12-month lease agreements will be forced to vacate their apartment homes upon the expiration of their leases, and tenants on month-to-month leases will be forced to vacate when their lease is up, but not earlier than 120 days from the date of the notice to vacate; and WHEREAS, at the April 2, 2025 City Council meeting, tenants residing at McClellan Terrace, as well as many other community members expressed great concern about the displacement of 94 families, including approximately 60 school-age children and youth, highlighting the potential for significant community disruption and hardship; and WHEREAS, many if not all of the school-age children and youth to be displaced by this forced transfer from their home at McClellan Terrance attend the nearby schools of Lincoln Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School, all high-performing schools; and WHEREAS, the current threat of displacing residents at McClellan Terrace raises broader concerns regarding further loss of multiple-family use housing and potential displacement of renters within the City, and demonstrates the need for further studies evaluating the adoption of regulations prohibiting such conversions to student housing; and WHEREAS, the City has long recognized the importance of protecting families and other residents from displacement, as reflected in the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, which emphasizes that “new housing sites should avoid or minimize displacement of existing uses, particularly existing residential uses that would necessitate the relocation of residents,” with displacement being a significant concern, particularly for low- and moderate-income residents, and causing the loss of both homes and critical community support networks; and 191 CC 05-06-2025 191 of 554 Resolution No. 25-____ Page 2 01276.0005 2001695.1 WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted regulations in Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.116 to address the harms associated with the conversions of multiple-family use housing by prohibiting most conversions of apartment projects to common interest developments, unless and until it can reasonably be demonstrated that comparable replacement housing exists within the housing market area within a similar price range. (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(a).) WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.116 further forbids such conversions when “the vacancy rate for apartment houses within the housing market area is less than five percent at the time at the time of application and has averaged five percent over the past six months…” (CMC section 19.116.030 (A)(1)(e).) WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, residents, visitors and businesses, and in preserving housing, including multiple-family rental housing within the City by regulating the transitio n of multiple-family use housing to student housing, and thereby preventing the loss of multiple-family housing within City limits and preventing displacement of City residents; and WHEREAS, today the City has no standards or regulations applicable to the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing and the impacts of such on the welfare of the City’s citizens, residents, visitors and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City’s permissive regulatory environment towards the transition of multiple-family housing to student housing will: 1) result in the loss of essential housing, including rental housing, for families and others within the City, 2) displace current tenants, including families and families with school-age children and youth currently enrolled in local public schools, 3) disrupt established relationships between and among families and friends residing in the multiple-family use building or nearby residences who may be unable to find alternate housing within the neighborhood, school district or even within the City, 4) encourage the loss of multiple- family use housing in favor of student housing, 5) potentially increase the commute distance to and from work for tenants displaced by student housing potentially increasing Greenhouse Gas emissions; and 6) reduce the incentive for institutions of higher learning to build new student housing to accommodate the needs of the institutions’ students for local housing; and WHEREAS, the City encourages institutions of higher education located within or near its boundaries to prioritize the development of new on-campus student housing to meet the growing demand for student accommodation; and WHEREAS, the transfer of McClellan Terrace to the District, a public entity, along with the transition to student housing, will have substantial negative financial consequences for the City because the new owner, the District—a public entity—is exempt from paying assessed property tax, yet at the same time the population of McCellan Terrace will increase substantially with the new student housing use, resulting in greater use of City services at a greater cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to prioritizing the development of new housing, including student housing, rather than permitting the conversion of existing multiple-family use housing to student housing; and 192 CC 05-06-2025 192 of 554 Resolution No. 25-____ Page 3 01276.0005 2001695.1 WHEREAS, the City’s failure to protect multiple-family use housing for families and others within the City could add to the shortage of permanent housing options within the City, impacting the City’s population; and WHEREAS, rental housing market is tight. with vacancy rates in the greater Santa Clara Valley region, including the City are tight. The Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a regional report finding vacancy rates at 4% in 2020; and WHEREAS, absent clear regulation, the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing within the City poses a threat to the public peace, health, and safety, and unless the City takes regulatory action to curtail such transition, the impacts described above are likely to occur; and WHEREAS, the City is aware of other cities in the area and region that have developed ordinances to manage or eliminate the transition of multiple-family use housing to student housing, which could be good models for the City and City staff to study, but the City and City staff need time to study these ordinances and issues and develop appropriate regulations consistent with the City’s unique needs, as well as State and federal law; and WHEREAS, the City encourages institutions of higher education located within or near its boundaries to prioritize the development of new on-campus student housing to meet the growing demand for student accommodations; and WHEREAS, the transfer of McClellan Terrace to the District, a public entity, along with the transition to student housing, will have substantial negative financial consequences for the City because the new owner, the District—a public entity—is exempt from paying assessed property tax, yet at the same time the population of McCellan Terrace will increase substantially with the new student housing use, resulting in the use of City services and greater impacts to the City; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to prioritizing the development of new housing, including student housing, rather than permitting the conversion of existing multiple-family use housing to student housing; and WHEREAS, on-campus student housing reduces pressure on the City’s existing multiple- family use housing stock and supports both student success and broader community housing stability; and WHEREAS, the City’s failure to protect multiple-family use housing for families and others within the City could add to the shortage of housing options within the City, impacting the City’s population; and WHEREAS, by preserving the City’s existing multiple-family use housing stock and encouraging the development of student housing on campus, the City aims to prevent displacement of families and long-term residents, while supporting institutions of higher education in providing dedicated housing for their students. 193 CC 05-06-2025 193 of 554 Resolution No. 25-____ Page 4 01276.0005 2001695.1 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Direct City staff to study possible solutions to ensure multiple-family use housing stock is not converted to student housing, and perhaps bring forward recommendations for amendments to Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code pertaining to zoning, such as establishing dedicated student housing zones within the City, for consideration. SECTION 3. Direct City staff to consider possible mechanisms to encourage higher education to focus on building permanent on-campus housing that supports student success and safety; utilize extended-stay hotels as temporary, affordable options when appropriate without displacing multiple-family use housing; and reaffirm the City’s commitment to maintaining a healthy balance between student housing needs and community stability. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ___ day of _______, 2025, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED _________________________________ Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino _________________________________ Date ATTEST: _________________________________ Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk _________________________________ Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Floy E. Andrews, City Attorney _________________________________ Date 194 CC 05-06-2025 194 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13859 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 10. Subject: Approval of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Fee Schedule Update Adopt Resolution No. 25-026 approving FY 2025-26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by July 6, 2025. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™195 CC 05-06-2025 195 of 554 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Fiscal Year (FY) 2025‐26 Fee Schedule Update Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 25‐XXX approving FY 2025‐26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by July 6, 2025. Reasons for Recommendation On February 6, 2024, City Council received the results of a comprehensive 2023 Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) and User Fee Study. The City historically conducts fee studies in conjunction with a Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) approximately every seven years. The study evaluated the full cost (both direct and indirect) of providing City services and informed a more accurate and equitable fee structure. Fee updates based on that study along with the newly developed User Fee Cost Recovery policy were adopted on May 14, 2024. The FY 2025-26 proposed fee schedules continue to use the full cost recovery methodology developed in the 2023 study and apply the latest inflationary adjustments to the FY 2024- 25 rates: Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase of 2.689%, the Bay Area Construction Cost Index (CCI) decrease of .790%, and/or budgeted labor costs increase of 9.690%, excluding state regulated fees. The adjusted schedules ensure alignment with the Council-approved cost recovery policy (Attachment J) while maintaining fairness, clarity, and fiscal transparency. The proposed fee increases are estimated to generate approximately $785,483 in additional annual revenue, primarily benefiting the General Fund. Fee Schedules and Notable Changes Schedule A – General: This schedule includes fees not specific to a department or division that would require a dedicated schedule, such as code enforcement permits, City Clerk services, database requests, business license applications and related fees, and other fees for service. 196 CC 05-06-2025 196 of 554 A CPI adjustment is also proposed for all relevant fees using the full cost recovery rate included in the fee study. The adjustments to these fees are primarily influenced by changes in the cost of materials or external factors beyond the City's control. No new fees are being proposed Schedule B – Engineering: Utilized by the Development Services Division within the Public Works Department, this schedule covers fees necessary for the division to review plans and applications for private developments (onsite grading and drainage operations), issuance of encroachment permits, inspections of work performed within the Public Right of Way, along with other permits, and services. Engineering fees are typically adjusted annually by CCI and Budgeted Labor Costs. The schedule continues the practice of not charging for Block Party services and Bi-Annual Parking Permit. No new fees are being proposed Schedule C – Planning: This schedule is utilized by the Planning Division, which administers all required review and evaluation processes for proposed land use projects and maintains the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Planning fees are typically adjusted annually by CPI and Budgeted Labor Costs. No new fees are being proposed Schedule D – Building: Utilized by the Building Division of the Community Development Department, this schedule includes fees for providing the following services: plan review and permit issuance of all proposed construction; code, ordinance, requirements, and regulation explanations; building inspection services; and other building and development-related services. Building fees are typically adjusted annually by Budgeted Labor Costs. The proposed schedule includes Year 2 of a 3-year phase-in of full cost recovery for Additions Plan Check and Inspection Fees. As a result, these fees will increase by approximately 50–75% compared to last year’s rates, continuing the planned adjustment initiated in FY 2024-25. No new fees are being proposed Index-Based Adjustments Depending on the user fee, the CPI, CCI, or change in budget cost adjustment is applied based on the user fee’s underlying cost driver. For FY 2025‐26, the CPI increase is 2.69% 197 CC 05-06-2025 197 of 554 per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CCI decrease is -0.79% per the Engineering News Record, and the labor cost increase is 9.69%, as shown in the table below. February 2024 February 2025 Index Increase Percent Increase Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI‐U) 345.151 354.432 9.281 2.69% Construction Cost Index (CCI) 15,527.50 15,404.88 -122.62 -0.79% Budgeted Labor Costs $ 41,606,0271 $ 45,637,0002 $4,030,973 9.69% 1 Base Salary and Benefits (FY 2024‐25 Estimated Budget) 2 Base Salary and Benefits (FY 2025‐26 Estimated Budget) The net 9.7% increase in estimated Budget Labor Costs is primarily comprised of the inclusion of total pension costs, including mandatory annual payments towards the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL), as well as increases for employees progressing to higher salary steps and negotiated benefits. The following table summarizes the current year’s application of indexes to Schedules A- D, along with the rate increases for the previous four years. Fiscal Year Schedule A – General Fees Schedule B – Engineering Fees Schedule C – Planning Fees Schedule D – Building Fees 2025-26 2.7% CPI -.79% CCI, 9.7% Estimated Labor Cost increase 2.7% CPI 9.7% Estimated Labor Cost increase 9.7% Estimated Labor Cost increase 2024-25 FY 2023-24 cost- recovery plus 2.4% CPI FY 2023-24 cost- recovery plus 0.7% CCI, 1.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase FY 2023-24 cost - recovery plus 2.4% CPI 1.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase FY 2023-24 cost - recovery plus 1.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase 2023-24 5.3% CPI 7.1% CCI, 9.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase 5.3% CPI 9.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase 9.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase 2022-23 5.2% CPI 9.8% CCI, 1.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase 5.2% CPI 1.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase 1.0% Estimated Labor Cost increase 198 CC 05-06-2025 198 of 554 2021-22 1.6% CPI 2.5% CCI, 5.7% Estimated Labor Cost increase 1.6% CPI 5.7% Estimated Labor Cost increase 5.7% Estimated Labor Cost increase Parks and Recreation fees (Schedule E) are not part of the proposed fee increase because they are set by current market rates per Resolutions No. 04-350. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact If Council approves the proposed fee updates with an effective date of July 6th, 2025, the proposed fee schedule adjustments are anticipated to generate additional revenues totaling $785,483 for Fiscal Year 2025-26. A decision to forego implementing these increases would result in the General Fund absorbing a greater share of service costs, placing additional financial strain on the City’s primary operating fund. Over time, this subsidization could limit the City’s ability to fund other essential services and programs that benefit the broader community. The recommended increase in fees and estimated revenue are summarized as follows: Fee Schedule Additional Revenue Factor and Basis Schedule A – General $971 2.7% CPI Schedule B – Engineering $136,082 -0.79% CCI, 9.7% Labor Costs Schedule C – Planning $106,255 2.7% CPI, 9.7% Labor Costs Schedule D – Building $542,175 9.7% Labor Costs City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description None. Council Goal None. California Environmental Quality Act Not applicable. 199 CC 05-06-2025 199 of 554 ____________________________________ Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Finance Manager Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Redline) B – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Redline) C – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Redline) D – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Redline) E – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule A – General (Clean) F – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule B – Engineering (Clean) G – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule C – Planning (Clean) H – FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Schedule D – Building (Clean) I – Draft Resolution No. 25‐XXX approving FY 2025-26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D J – User Fee Cost Recovery Policy 200 CC 05-06-2025 200 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule A - General Fee Description Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ All Municipal Code Parking Violations (including County and State fees)Each $82.81 $85.04 $2.23 2.7% Animal Establishment Permit Each $369.05 $378.98 $9.92 2.7% Annual Lobbyist Registration Fee Per Lobbyist $296.86 $304.84 $7.98 2.7% Bingo Permit Annual $261.41 $268.44 $7.03 2.7% Business License Database Each $30.42 $31.24 $0.82 2.7% Candidate Statement Fee (County Regulated Fee)Each Current County Registrar Cost Current County Registrar Cost City Administrative Fee Each 15%15% Code Enforcement Abatement/Graffiti Cleanup Each Actual Cost *Actual Cost * Hourly rate Hourly $246.04 $252.65 $6.62 2.7% Substandard Housing Re-Inspection Each $246.04 $252.65 $6.62 2.7% Community Festivals - One-time Business License (correction)Each $12.88 $13.23 $0.35 2.7% Community Festivals - Business Partners Each $65.72 $67.49 $1.77 2.7% Community Festivals - Additional 10' x 10' space (includes an additional table and 2 chairs)Each $11.85 $12.17 $0.32 2.7% Community Festivals - Non-profit partners Each $11.85 $12.17 $0.32 2.7% Compilation of New Records Each Actual Cost *Actual Cost * Credit Card Transaction Fee Each 3.40%3.40% CVC Parking Citation Dismissals Admin Fee (State Regulated Fee)Each $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 0.0% Damage to City Property Grounds, Streets, Facilities, Traffic Engineering/Maintenance Each Actual Cost *Actual Cost * Dangerous Dog Annual Registration Fee Annual $492.07 $505.30 $13.23 2.7% Sign Each $24.90 $25.57 $0.67 2.7% Duplicate Business Licenses Each $15.21 $15.62 $0.41 2.7% Event Video Taping/Editing Each Actual Cost *Actual Cost * False Alarms Each $121.68 $124.95 $3.27 2.7% Farmers Market Each $3.29 $3.38 $0.09 2.7% Fingerprinting Processing (State Fee $32 plus County Fee $20)Each $73.09 $75.05 $1.97 2.7% Flea Markets Each $13.94 $14.31 $0.37 2.7% Public Requests for GIS Printed Maps Standard pre-formatted maps Plotted maps Per Map $37.10 $38.10 $1.00 2.7% Printed maps Per Map $4.95 $5.08 $0.13 2.7% Custom request maps Per Map Actual Cost *Actual Cost * Prints/plots of aerial photography (see Engineering fees)Per Map Actual Cost *Actual Cost * Handbill Permit Each $246.04 $252.65 $6.62 2.7% Renewals Each $123.02 $126.33 $3.31 2.7% Late Payment on 30 Day Delinquent City Invoices Each 12% per annum 12% per annum Massage Establishment Fee (Includes fingerprinting/background check and business start-up inspection)Each $553.58 $568.47 $14.89 2.7% Renewals (Includes two inspections per year)Each $184.53 $189.49 $4.96 2.7% Massage Managing Employee (Includes fingerprint/background check) Each $492.07 $505.30 $13.23 2.7% Renewals Each $184.53 $189.49 $4.96 2.7% Massage Permit Appeal (Denial/Revocation)Each $1,230.18 $1,263.26 $33.08 2.7% Municipal Code Book Per Book Vendor Invoice Vendor Invoice New Business Monthly Reports Each $45.63 $46.86 $1.23 2.7% Noise Variances/Special Exceptions Each $252.38 $259.16 $6.79 2.7% Notary Fee (State Regulated Fee)Per Signature $15.00/signature $15.00/signature $0.00 0.0% Outside Agency Review / Services Vendor Invoice + City Admin Fee Vendor Invoice + City Admin Fee Petitions for Reconsideration Each $376.05 $386.17 $10.11 2.7% Permit Update Each $123.02 $126.33 $3.31 2.7% 201 CC 05-06-2025 201 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule A - General Fee Description Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ Photocopies - per sheet Standard sizes Per Page $0.30 $0.30 $0.01 2.7% For 11 x 17 sizes or color sheets Per Page $0.69 $0.70 $0.02 2.7% For Large format prints Per Page $34.36 $35.29 $0.92 2.7% Fair Political Practices Commission Per Page $0.10 $0.11 $0.00 2.7% Fair Political Practices Commission (older than five (5) years)Per Page $5.12 $5.26 $0.14 2.7% Property Liens Administrative Fee Each $246.04 $252.65 $6.62 2.7% Returned Check Charge (State Regulated) First returned check Each $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 0.0% Subsequent checks Each $35.00 $35.00 $0.00 0.0% Sign Removal (Public Right-of-Way) (All except Political Signs)Each $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 0.0% Sign Recovery Fee for Political Signs Each $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 0.0% Small Income Business License Each $92.02 $94.49 $2.47 2.7% Solicitor Permit (Includes fingerprinting)Each $492.07 $505.30 $13.23 2.7% Renewals Each $123.02 $126.33 $3.31 2.7% Taxi Driver Permit (Includes fingerprinting/background check)Each $984.14 $1,010.61 $26.46 2.7% Renewals Each $123.02 $126.33 $3.31 2.7% Tobacco Retailer (County Regulated Fee) Application Fee Each Current County Cost Current County Cost Annual Fee Annual Current County Cost Current County Cost Williamson Act Filings Each $145.91 $149.83 $3.92 2.7% Video/Audio Service DVD/CD Each $25.76 $26.45 $0.69 2.7% Flash Drive Each $27.80 $28.55 $0.75 2.7% * Actual cost is: 1) Fully burdened employee costs as calculated through the 2023 Cost Allocation Plan and 2) cost of materials, contractors, and supplies. 202 CC 05-06-2025 202 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ Each $608 $667 $58.88 9.7% Each $420 $461 $40.73 9.7% Each $1,068 $1,172 $103.48 9.7% Each Double the permit cost Double the permit cost Each $2,217 $2,432 $214.83 9.7% Each $1,747 $1,916 $169.25 9.7% Each $3,551 $3,895 $344.03 9.7% Each/% of Project 5% of Project Costs and/or $257 per inspection 5% of Project Costs and/or $282 per inspection $25.00 9.7% Per Permit $528 $579 $51.18 9.7% Each No Charge No Charge Each $1,352 $1,483 $130.97 9.7% Each/% of Improv.Greater of $4891 or 6% of cost of improvement Greater of $5365 or 6% of cost of improvement $474.00 9.7% Each $8,383 $9,195 $812.21 9.7% Each $13,687 $15,013 $1,326.03 9.7% Each $1,302 $1,428 $126.15 9.7% Per Hour $318 $349 $31.00 9.7% Per Hour $318 $349 $31.00 9.7% Each/% of Improv.Greater of $5655 or 5% of cost of improvement Greater of $6203 or 5% of cost of improvement $548.00 9.7% Each/% of Improv.Greater of $10729 or 5% of cost of improvement Greater of $11768 or 5% of cost of improvement $1,039.00 9.7% Each $1,589 $1,743 $153.95 9.7% Per Hour $190 $208 $18.40 9.7% Each *Cost of review + City Administrative Fee *Cost of review + City Administrative Fee Each $636 $697 $61.57 9.7% Each $3,522 $3,863 $341.18 9.7% Each $2,177 $2,388 $210.91 9.7% Each $2,177 $2,388 $210.91 9.7% Each $4,216 $4,624 $408.43 9.7% Per Unit $6,797 $6,797 $0.00 0.0% Per Unit $4,215 $4,215 $0.00 0.0% Per s.f.$10.94 $10.94 $0.00 0.0% Per s.f.$19.15 $19.15 $0.00 0.0% Per Room $3,728 $3,728 $0.00 0.0% Per trip $6,862 $6,862 $0.00 0.0% Each $16 $16 $0.00 0.0% Each $90 $90 $0.00 0.0% Per Hour $318 $349 $30.83 9.7% - Stand Alone Building Permit Review - Hotel - Other (per PM trip) Transportation Permit (State Regulated Fee) - Single - Annual Utility Company - Additional Engineering Investigation or Coordination Transportation Impact Fee - Single Family - Multi-Family (Includes apartments, condos, and townhomes) - Retail - Office Public Works Confirmation Annexation (plus County filing fee) Certificates of Compliance - Initial Review - Finalize Certificates Lot Line Adjustment - Residential - Commercial Planning Application Review VMT Monitoring Fee Professional Services 3rd Party Consultant Review *Per Outside Agency Review/Services on Schedule A - General - Tract Map (> 4 lots) Plan Check and Inspection Additional Plan Review - 3 or more reviews Revisions to Plans and Permits Review of Public/Private Improvement Plans: - 10,000 s.f or greater Parcel Map/Tract Map (Map Checking Fee) - Parcel Map (1-4 lots) - Small Cell Facility Encroachment Permit Street Cuts Miscellaneous - Minor Street Cuts - Major Street Cuts - Special Major Permit (projects in excess of $30,000 or over 15 working days) Permit Extension FEE DESCRIPTION Encroachment Permits - Minor Encroachment Permits (Local Streets) - Minor Encroachment Permits (Utility) - Major Encroachment Permits (Arterials and Collectors) - Work without Permit Crane Lift Grading permit - <10,000 s.f. lot 203 CC 05-06-2025 203 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Unit FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ Each $738 $809 $71.47 9.7% Deposit $4,571 $5,014 $442.87 9.7% Each No Charge No Charge Each $3,200 $3,510 $310.02 9.7% Each $4,980 $5,462 $482.48 9.7% Each $2,597 $2,848 $251.58 9.7% Each $1,610 $1,766 $156.00 9.7% Each $1,125 $1,234 $108.96 9.7% Each $300 $329 $29.10 9.7% Each $1,411 $1,548 $136.74 9.7% Each $1,149 $1,260 $111.33 9.7% Each No Charge No Charge Each $466 $511 $45.17 9.7% Dwelling unit $4,707 $4,669 -$37.18 -0.8% Per acre $6,389 $6,339 -$50.48 -0.8% Per acre and $4,584 $4,548 -$36.21 -0.8% Per unit $347 $345 -$2.74 -0.8% Per acre $12,344 $12,246 -$97.51 -0.8% Per acre $4,704 $4,666 -$37.16 -0.8% Per acre $2,375 $2,357 -$18.77 -0.8% No charge No charge Each $434 $476 $42.00 9.7% Each $158 $173 $15.28 9.7% Each $315 $346 $30.55 9.7% Each $2,217 $2,432 $214.81 9.7% Hour $291 $319 $28.20 9.7% Per Permit 5.8%5.8%Technology Fee Single Family Multi-Family Storm Management Plan Fee Public Works Staff Time Public Facility Uses Stormwater Permit Inspections - Commercial Initial Inspection Re-Inspection for Violations Plan Review Fee *Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre. Commercial and Industrial Public Educational Uses Low-Density Residential (Less than one dwelling unit per acre hillside zoning only) Single-Family Residential greater than one dwelling unit per acre and less than 5.2 dwelling units per acre Multiple Family greater than 5.2 dwelling units per acre - Implementation phase - Permit Parking Bi-annual Fee Streamside Permit Master Storm Drain Area Fees: Certificate of Correction Floodplain Evaluation/Elevation Certificate Review Permit Parking Study - Application Phase - Summary Vacation - Full Vacation Rural/Semi-Rural Classification Application - Application Phase - Implementation phase FEE DESCRIPTION Banners - Large Banners Across Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Events/Parades Block Party Vacation of Public Street ROW/PUE 204 CC 05-06-2025 204 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Unit FY 2024-25 Proposed Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ $105,000/DU $105,000/DU $0.00 0.0% $60,000/DU $60,000/DU $0.00 0.0% $60,000/DU $60,000/DU $0.00 0.0% $54,000/DU $54,000/DU $0.00 0.0% $30,000/DU $30,000/DU $0.00 0.0% $15,000 or proportional to the size of the main DU, whichever is less $15,000 or proportional to the size of the main DU, whichever is less $0.00 0.0% Each $513 $562 $49.66 9.7% Each Actual costs Actual costs PUBLIC TREE DAMAGE OR REMOVAL FEE SCHEDULE: This fee schedule is defined in Chapter 14.12 and establishes the fee to be paid to the City for damage to and/or removal of public trees. Repeat offenders, intentional actors and professionals, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to the following fees: Public Tree Damage Fee: Public Tree Removal Fee: FEE = UNMODIFIED TREE VALUE x SPECIES RATING x CONDITION RATING For inputs, use the following values: UNMODIFIED TREE Refer to Unmodified Tree Value Table SPECIES RATING Refer to Species Rating Table CONDITION RATING Good = 1.00, Fair = 0.75, Poor = 0.50 The fee for trees less than 4 inches in diameter shall not be reduced by species or condition rating. 1st time offenders, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to a fee of 10% of the Public Tree Damage Fee or 10% of the Public Tree Removal Fee as defined below or $600, whichever is higher, per public tree damaged and/or removed. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming, or replanting will apply. $100 per cumulative diameter inch of branch or root plus, if any, the actual costs incurred for immediate corrective pruning plus, if any, the calculated costs for future corrective pruning, as may be required to maintain the health of the tree. The fee for each tree removed shall be based upon the unmodified value of the tree removed (based upon diameter), multiplied by the species rating, multiplied by the condition rating. Trees larger than 40” shall have the fee determined by the most recent edition of the 'Guide for Plant Appraisal', published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, using the trunk formula method. * Park Land Dedication Fees are calculated per Municipal Code section 13.08. On an annual basis, Public Works Department updates the fair market value of land based on appraised values of land sales. ** ADU Park Land Dedication Fee is based on the density of the property per Municipal Code section 13.08, or proportionally to the size of the main dwelling unit as stipulated by State ADU mandates. New Public Tree Cost Schedule: Public Tree Planting Cost: 24" Street Tree 36" Street Tree or Larger 0 - 5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20+ Senior Citizen Housing Dev. ADU 750 SF or more** FEE DESCRIPTION Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee* Density of Dwelling Units/Ac 205 CC 05-06-2025 205 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply. Unmodified Tree Value Table: Tree size (diameter of trunk) 1” to 2” $348 2” to 3” $348 3” to 4” $1,039 4” to 5” $1,039 5” to 6” $1,404 6” to 7” $1,851 7” to 8” $2,378 8” to 9” $2,987 9” to 10” $3,677 10” to 11”$4,449 11” to 12” $5,301 12” to 13” $6,235 13” to 14” $7,249 14” to 15” $8,345 15” to 16” $9,522 16” to 17” $10,780 17” to 18”$12,120 18” to 19” $13,540 19” to 20” $15,042 20” to 21” $16,625 21” to 22” $18,290 22” to 23” $20,036 23” to 24” $21,862 24” to 25”$23,769 25” to 26” $25,758 26” to 27” $27,829 27” to 28” $29,980 28” to 29” $32,212 29” to 30” $34,527 30” to 31” $36,920 31” to 32”$39,396 32” to 33” $41,954 33” to 34” $44,593 34” to 35” $47,312 35” to 36” $50,113 36” to 37” $52,995 37” to 38” $55,958 38” to 39”$59,003 39” to 40”$62,128 Measurement shall be measured 4.5 feet above the ground level and rounded down to the nearest whole inch. If the tree is multi-trunk, use 1.5 times the diameter of the largest trunk to determine fee. If the tree is removed to the ground, tree inventory data will be used to determine the trunk diameter. If there is tree damage 4-5 feet above the ground, trunk diameter is to be measured 1 foot above ground level and 1 inch is to be subtracted from the diameter to determine fee. 206 CC 05-06-2025 206 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Acacia ACACIA 60 Blackwoodacaia ACACIA MELANOXYLON 60 Trident maple ACER BUERGERIANUM 90 Big leaf maple ACER MACROPHYLLUM**100 Japanese maple ACER PALMATUM 90 Red maple ACER REBRUM 70 Silver maple ACER SACCHARINUM 80 California buckeye AESCULUS CALIFORNICA**100 Red hoursechesnut AESCULUS X CARNEA 90 Tree of heaven AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA 0 Silk tree ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN 50 Black Alder ALNUS GLUTINOSA 80 Strawberry madrone ARBUTUS MARINA 90 Madrone ARBUTUS MENZIESII 100 Hong Kong orchid BAUHINIA BLAKEANA 75 Birch BETULA ALBA 60 Incense cedar CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 80 Horsetail tree CASUARINA EQUISETIFOLIA 75 Blue atlas cedar CEDRUS ATLANTICA**100 Deodora cedar CEDRUS DEODARA**100 Chinese hackberry CELTUS SINENSIS 65 Carob tree CERATONIA SILIQUA 70 Redbud(eastern)CERCIS CANADENSIS 75 Camphor tree CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 70 Citrus CITRUS SP 40 English hawthorn CRATAEGUS LAEVIGATA 70 Cypress CUPRESSACEAE 80 Italian cypress CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIREN 80 Japanese persimmon DIOSPYROS KAKI 40 Loquat ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA 60 Blue gum tree EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS 70 Eucalyptus EUCALYPTUS SP 60 Misson fig FICUS CARICA 40 Autumn purple ash FRAXINUS AMERICANA 80 Raywood ash FRAXINUS ANGUSTIFOLIA 'RAYWOOD'80 Moraine ash FRAXINUS HOLOTRICHA 80 Shamel ash FRAXINUS UHDEI 80 Modesto ash FRAXINUS VELUTINA 'MODESTO'80 Australian willow GEIJERA PARVIFOLIA 80 Maidenhair GINKO BILOBA 80 Honey locust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 70 Silk oak tree GREVILLEA ROBUSTA 70 English holly ILLEX AQUIFOLIUM 40 Jacaranda JACARANDA MIMMOSIFOLIA 70 Walnut JUGLANS 70 Species Rating Table 207 CC 05-06-2025 207 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Black walnut JUGLANS HINDSII 70 Chinese flame tree KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA 80 Muskogee crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'MUSKOGEE'80 Nanchez crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'NANCHEZ'80 Tuscarora crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'TUSCARORA'80 Sweet bay LAURUS NOBILIS 80 Japanese privit LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 30 American sweetgum LIQUIDAMBER STYRACIFLUA 40 Tulip tree LIRIODENDRON 60 Brisbane box tree LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS 90 Magnolia MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA RUSSET 75 Magnolia (dwarf)MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA ST MARY 75 Saucer magnolia MAGNOLIA SOLINGIANA 75 Crabapple tree MALUS FLORIBUNDA 90 Apple MALUS SP 40 Mayten tree MAYTENUS 70 Malaleuca(broad leaf)MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA 60 Malaleuca(narrow leaf)MELALEUCA LINARIFOLIA 60 Dawn redwood METASAQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES 100 Fruitless mulberry MORUS ALBA 40 Black mulberry MORUS NIGRA 40 Myoprum MYOPORUM LAETUM 70 Oleander tree NERIUM OLEANDER 40 Olive OLEA EUROPAEA 70 Devilwood OSMANTHUS AMERICANUS 0 Palm PALM*40 Avocado PERSEA AMERICANA 60 Red leaf photinia PHOTINIA GLABRA 60 Spruce PICEA 80 Colorado spruce PICEA PUNGENS 80 Colorado blue spruce PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA'80 Italian stone pine PINUS PINEA 90 Pine PINUS SP 30 Chinese pistacio PISTACIA CHINENSIS 80 Lemonwood tree PITTOSPORUM EUGENIOIDES 40 Japanese cheesewood PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 40 London plane 'colombiana'PLATANUS COLUMBIANA 95 Western Sycamore PLATANUS RACEMOSA**100 London plane 'bloodgood'PLATANUS X HISPANICA 'BLOODGOOD'95 Yew pine PODOCURPUS MACROPHYLLUS 75 Poplar POPULUS 60 Flowering cherry PRUNUS AKEBONO 80 Wild Plum PRUNUS AMARACANA 40 Almond tree PRUNUS ALMOND 50 Apricot tree PRUNUS APRICOT 40 Species Rating Table 208 CC 05-06-2025 208 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Fruiting cherry PRUNUS AVIUM 0 Carolina cherry PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 60 Purple leaf plum PRUNUS CERASFERA KRAUTER VESUVIUS 70 Peach tree PRUNUS PERSICA 40 Douglas fir PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII 80 Guava PSIDIUM GUAJAVA 40 Pomegranate PUNICA GRANATUM 40 Aristocrat Flowering pear tree PYRUS CALLERYANA 'ARISTOCRAT'75 Bradford flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'BRADFORD'75 Chanticleer flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER'75 Evergreen flowering pear PYRUS KAWAKAMII 75 Asian pear PYRUS PYRIFOLIA 40 Oak QUERCUS 90 Coast live oak QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA**100 White oak QUERCUS ALBA 90 Texas red oak QUERCUS BUCKEYI 90 Sierra oak QUERCUS CAMBII 90 Blue oak QUERCUS DOUGLASII**100 Forest green oak QUERCUS FRAINETTO 90 Holly oak QUERCUS ILEX 90 Black oak QUERCUS KELLOGGII**100 Valley oak QUERCUS LOBATA**100 Red oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Cork oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Southern live oak QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 100 Interior live oak QUERCUS WISLIZENI**100 African sumac RHUS LANCIA 70 Weeping willow SALIX BABYLONICA 40 Wild willow SALIX SCOULERIANA 0 California pepper tree SCHINUS MOLE 40 Brazilian pepper tree SCHINUS TEREBINTHEFOLIUS 40 Coast redwood SEQUIOA SEMPRIVIRONS 95 Giant sequioa SEQUOIADENDRON GIGANTEUM 80 Japanese pogoda SOPHORIA JAPONICA 70 Chinese tallow TRIADICA SEBIFERA 50 Water gum TRISTANIA LAURINA 70 Bosque chinese elm ULMAS PARVIFOLIA 'BOSQUE'90 Chinese elm ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 70 Siberian elm ULMUS PUMILA 60 Bay laurel UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA**100 Mexican fan palm WASHINGTON ROBUSTA 0 Spanish dagger yucca YUCCA GLORIOSA 0 Zelkova ZELKOVA SERRATA 65 *All palms on Palm Avenue are protected heritage trees and will be rated @ 100% **Protected tree species Species Rating Table 209 CC 05-06-2025 209 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule C - Planning DEFINITIONS P. Legal Noticing Fee: Assessed for all permit applications that require noticing (CMC Chapter 19.12). Note: Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process. The Director of Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the above criteria. J. Project Review Meeting: Request for a one hour meeting by an applicant to review a project with City staff without any written K. Preliminary Review: One round of informal review of any proposed project with written feedback from City staff. L. Temporary Sign Permit: A review of a temporary sign application for banners, A-frame signs and other temporary signs N. Extension Permit: A one-time one-year extension of the planning permit expiration date (CMC Chapter 19.12). M. Sign Permit: For signs that require a public meeting such as freeway oriented signage, electronic readerboard signs etc. (CMC Chapter 19.104) F. Minor Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where such review is required (CMC Chapter 19.12). H. Minor Modification: An application that is administratively reviewed by staff either at an advertised public hearing/meeting or in a non-hearing process (CMC Chapter 19.164). O. Appeal: A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by the approval authority. Fee Exemption for: an appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision subject to the appeal, an appointed public official serving on a board that is directly affected by the decision and City Council members. At the conclusion of a City Council appeal hearing, it may choose to, at its sole discretion, refund all, a portion of, or none of the appeal fee (CMC Chapter 19.12). Q. Special Events Permit: A request to host a special event for no more than a total of 12 calendar days in a year including, but not limited to, employee holiday party, summer barbeque, any outdoor event where normal operations occur indoors, car sales/show event, events located in parking lots where such uses are not authorized ordinarily. Large events involve an entire shopping center, office or industrial buildings/sites, and other commercial sites. Small events typically involve individual businesses/tenants in a shopping center or building. Staff reserves the right to determine the applicable event type based on the project description provided. Churches/non-profits operating on property in their control are exempt from fees. R. Housing Mitigation Fee: A fee assessed in accordance with the City's General Plan Housing Element, Municipal Code (CMC 19.172) and the City's BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual. I. Exceptions: An exception to the zoning standards for which an exception process and findings are identified in the Municipal Code. These include Fence, Sign, Height, Hillside, Parking, R-1, A, A-1, and R1 cluster zone exceptions. This also includes exceptions identified in the City's Specific Plans (CMC Chapter 19.12 and Title 20). G. Major Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of all other development projects (CMC Chapter 19.12). A. Parcel Map: Subdivisions, including ministerial subdivisions - up to four (4) parcels (CMC Chapter 18.20). B. Tentative map: Subdivisions - five (5) or more parcels (CMC Chapter 18.16). C. Minor: for ten thousand square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or six or less residential units D. Major: for more than ten thousand square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or greater than six residential units (CMC Chapter 19.12). E. Minor Architectural and Site Approval - Duplex/Residential: Architectural approval of single family homes in a planned development zoning district, redevelopment or modification of duplexes, and associated landscaping, where such review is required (CMC Chapter 19.12). 210 CC 05-06-2025 210 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule C - Planning Fee Description 1 Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ Planning Staff Hourly Rate 2 Per Hour $290 $318 28.00 9.7% General Plan Authorization Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Zoning Zoning Map Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Zoning Text Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Single-Story Overlay District Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Study Session Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Staff Hourly Rate Subdivision Parcel Map (See Definition A)Each $27,393 $30,047 2,654.00 9.7% Tentative Map (See Definition B)Each $47,078 $51,639 4,561.00 9.7% Conditional Use/Development Permit Temporary Use Permit Each $5,081 $5,573 492.00 9.7% Administrative Conditional Use Permit Each $10,722 $11,761 1,039.00 9.7% Minor (See Definition C)Each $25,755 $28,250 2,495.00 9.7% Major (See Definition D)Each $39,301 $43,109 3,808.00 9.7% Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit Minor (See Definition C)Each $11,618 $12,744 1,126.00 9.7% Major (See Definition D)Each $25,071 $27,500 2,429.00 9.7% Architectural and Site Approval Permit Minor Duplex / Residential (See Definition E)Each $10,692 $11,728 1,036.00 9.7% Minor (See Definition F)Each $16,683 $18,299 1,616.00 9.7% Major (See Definition G)Each $25,451 $27,917 2,466.00 9.7% Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits Minor Residential Permit Each $4,024 $4,414 390.00 9.7% Two-Story Permit without Design Review Each $5,035 $5,523 488.00 9.7% Two-Story Permit with Design Review Each $6,149 $6,745 596.00 9.7% Director Minor Modification (See Definition H)Each $5,497 $6,030 533.00 9.7% Ministerial Residential Permit Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit Each $4,551 $4,992 441.00 9.7% Exceptions (See Definition I) Fence Exception - R1 & R2 Each $4,673 $5,126 453.00 9.7% Fence Exception - Other Each $5,184 $5,686 502.00 9.7% Sign Exception Each $6,981 $7,657 676.00 9.7% R-1 Exception Each $7,821 $8,579 758.00 9.7% Heart of the City Exception Each $25,126 $27,560 2,434.00 9.7% Hillside Exception Each $23,965 $26,287 2,322.00 9.7% Exception - Other Each $7,942 $8,711 769.00 9.7% Variance Each $9,081 $9,961 880.00 9.7% Reasonable Accommodation Each $1,803 $1,978 175.00 9.7% Project Review Meeting (See Definition J)Per Review $2,504.00 $2,747.00 243.00 9.7% Preliminary Application Review (See Definition K) Single Family Per Review $2,534.00 $2,780.00 246.00 9.7% Non-Residential (Retail/Industrial/Office/Hotel) <10,000 sf Per Review $5,491.00 $6,023.00 532.00 9.7% >10,000 sf Per Review $9,550.00 $10,475.00 925.00 9.7% Residential / Mixed Use: Duplex Per Review $1,991.00 $2,184.00 193.00 9.7% 3-6 Units Per Review $8,777.00 $9,627.00 850.00 9.7% 6-50 Units Per Review $13,549.00 $14,862.00 1,313.00 9.7% >50 Units Per Review $19,556.00 $21,451.00 1,895.00 9.7% 211 CC 05-06-2025 211 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule C - Planning Fee Description Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ Tree Removal Permit Tree Removal Permit (no Arborist review required) First Tree Per Tree $424 $465 41.00 9.7% Each Additional Tree Per Tree $167 $183 16.00 9.6% Tree Removal Permit (Arborist review required) First Tree Per Tree $776 $851 75.00 9.7% Each Additional Tree Per Tree $250 $274 24.00 9.6% Retroactive Tree Removal Per Tree $5,520 $6,055 535.00 9.7% Heritage Tree Designation Each $422 $463 41.00 9.7% Tree Management Plan Each $7,951 $8,721 770.00 9.7% Signs Temporary Sign Permit (See Definition L)Each $553 $607 54.00 9.8% Sign Permit (See Definition M)Each $7,532 $8,262 730.00 9.7% Sign Program Each $4,456 $4,888 432.00 9.7% Planning Commission Interpretation Each $8,054 $8,834 780.00 9.7% Extension of Approved Entitlements (See Definition N)Each $2,103 $2,307 204.00 9.7% Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Report (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Major (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Minor (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Each Contract+Admin Fee Contract+Admin Fee Categorical Exemption (Plus County Filing Fee)Each $401 $440 39.00 9.7% Appeals (See Definition O) Planning Commission Each $505 $554 49.00 9.7% City Council Each $505 $554 49.00 9.7% Miscellaneous Fees Legal Noticing Fee (See Definition P)Each $527 $578 51.00 9.7% Mercury News Ad Each Actual Cost + Admin Fee Actual Cost + Admin Fee Zoning Verification Letter Each $583 $639 56.00 9.6% Public Convenience and Necessity Letter (Alcoholic Beverage License) Each $291 $319 28.00 9.6% Short-Term Rental Each $409 $449 40.00 9.8% Mobile Vending Registration Fee Each $548 $601 53.00 9.7% Special Events (See Definition Q)Sition Qe Def Large Event Each $4,886.00 $5,359.00 473.00 9.7% Small Event Each $500.00 $500.00 0.00 0.0% Planning Inspection Per Inspection $430.00 $472.00 42.00 9.8% Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8%5.8% Fees Assessed with Building Permits Wireless Master Plan Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) Equipment Mounted on Existing Light/Utility Pole Each $10.28 $11.28 1.00 9.7% New Personal Wireless Facility (not mounted on light/utility pole)Each $2,241 $2,458 217.00 9.7% Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) All Non-Residential and Multi-Family Per s.f.$1.52 $1.67 0.15 9.9% Residential Single Family Per s.f.$1.52 $1.67 0.15 9.9% General Plan Office Allocation Fee Per s.f.$1.52 $1.67 0.15 9.9% Planning Department Review fee (New Construction and Additions) (Payable at permit submittal)Each 20% of Plan Check and Inspection fees 20% of Plan Check and Inspection fees 212 CC 05-06-2025 212 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule C - Planning Fee Description Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: 3 Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees 2 (See Definition R) Residential - Ownership Detached Single Family Residence Per s.f.$21.87 $22.45 0.59 2.7% Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome Per s.f.$24.05 $24.70 0.65 2.7% Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac) Per s.f.$29.15 $29.94 0.78 2.7% Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac) Per s.f.$29.15 $29.94 0.78 2.7% Residential - Rental Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac) Per s.f.$29.15 $29.94 0.78 2.7% Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac) Per s.f.$36.44 $37.42 0.98 2.7% Non-Residential Office, Research and Development, or Industrial Per s.f.$34.55 $35.48 0.93 2.7% Hotel Per s.f.$17.28 $17.74 0.46 2.7% Self-storage, employee unit provided Per s.f.$0.65 $0.66 0.02 2.7% Self-storage, employee unit not provided Per s.f.$1.36 $1.40 0.04 2.7% Warehouse Per s.f.$48.00 $49.29 1.29 2.7% Commercial/Retail Per s.f.$14.58 $14.97 0.39 2.7% 1Based on 2023 Fee and Cost Allocation Plan Study by Matrix Consulting 1 All application fees except those project subject to the Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee (see note 2) allow for two rounds of review. Any submissions beyond two shall be subject to a fee equal to 50% of the total permit fees paid initially. 2Applications may be subject to a Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee for applicable staff time, and vendor invoice. These fees apply to projects that require a level of staff support greater than the scope of work included in the regular fee schedule and will be based on the time and materials required to process the entire project. The applicant will be notified if these fees are applicable to their project. The applicant will be required to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City for such projects. 3All Housing Mitigation Fees are assessed in accordance with the BMR Housing Mitigation Manual. Non-residential Housing Mitigation In-lieu Fees are based on the 2015 and the 2020 Supplement to the Non-Residential Nexus Analysis by Keyser Marsten. Residential Housing Mitigation In-lieu Fees are based on the 2015 Nexus Study. These fees increase automatically annually (on July 1 of each year) by the Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers for San Francisco, CA. If plans are submitted on paper, these must be sent to an outside agency for scanning. The cost of scanning the plans, plus the administrative fee per Schedule A - General Fees will be charged. An administrative fee (15%) will be charged for outside agency review/consultant services/outside services (ads etc.) per Schedule A - General Fees. 213 CC 05-06-2025 213 of 554 City of Cupertino, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fee Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees All rates increased by the City's Labor Cost Change (9.7%) Related IBC Class Building Use (e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost A Assembly 250 $128 $4,565 $4,297 $121.73 $127.39 1,250 $256 $5,782 $5,443 $121.73 $137.51 2,500 $256 $7,304 $7,162 $97.38 $5.12 5,000 $384 $9,738 $7,162 $24.35 $38.20 12,500 $384 $11,564 $10,027 $21.91 $33.11 25,000 $512 $14,303 $14,037 $57.21 $58.20 A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 $256 $3,652 $4,297 $45.65 $84.42 2,500 $512 $4,565 $5,729 $48.69 $80.21 5,000 $512 $5,782 $7,735 $42.60 $5.12 10,000 $768 $7,912 $7,735 $8.12 $21.01 25,000 $768 $9,129 $10,886 $8.52 $18.21 50,000 $1,024 $11,260 $15,183 $22.52 $32.41 B Business 1,000 $256 $5,782 $6,302 $38.04 $56.53 5,000 $512 $7,304 $8,308 $42.60 $51.57 10,000 $512 $9,434 $10,886 $33.47 $28.34 20,000 $768 $12,781 $13,464 $7.10 $6.68 50,000 $768 $14,911 $15,470 $7.30 $12.54 100,000 $1,024 $18,563 $21,486 $18.56 $22.51 B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $101.44 $130.03 1,500 $256 $5,782 $4,870 $101.44 $76.39 3,000 $256 $7,304 $6,016 $91.29 $4.27 6,000 $384 $10,042 $6,016 $16.91 $28.65 15,000 $384 $11,564 $8,594 $18.26 $21.86 30,000 $512 $14,303 $11,745 $47.68 $40.86 E Educational 100 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $304.31 $318.48 500 $256 $5,782 $4,584 $304.31 $343.77 1,000 $256 $7,304 $6,302 $273.88 $12.80 2,000 $384 $10,042 $6,302 $50.72 $85.94 5,000 $384 $11,564 $8,881 $54.78 $71.31 10,000 $512 $14,303 $12,318 $143.03 $128.30 E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $3,347 $3,438 $228.23 $246.86 500 $256 $4,260 $4,297 $243.45 $286.47 1,000 $256 $5,478 $5,729 $182.59 $12.80 2,000 $384 $7,304 $5,729 $40.58 $76.39 5,000 $384 $8,521 $8,021 $42.60 $65.58 10,000 $512 $10,651 $11,172 $106.51 $116.85 F Factory Industrial 1,000 $256 $6,391 $6,589 $22.82 $49.37 5,000 $512 $7,304 $8,308 $36.52 $51.57 10,000 $512 $9,129 $10,886 $39.56 $28.34 20,000 $768 $13,085 $13,464 $6.09 $6.68 50,000 $768 $14,911 $15,470 $3.65 $12.54 100,000 $1,024 $16,737 $21,486 $16.74 $22.51 F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $256 $5,173 $5,157 $30.43 $49.37 5,000 $512 $6,391 $6,875 $36.52 $45.84 10,000 $512 $8,216 $9,167 $30.43 $2.56 20,000 $768 $11,260 $9,167 $6.09 $12.41 50,000 $768 $13,085 $12,891 $6.09 $10.83 100,000 $1,024 $16,129 $18,048 $16.13 $19.07 H High Hazard 100 $128 $6,391 $4,584 $380.39 $390.10 500 $256 $7,912 $6,016 $486.90 $343.77 1,000 $256 $10,347 $7,735 $365.18 $12.80 2,000 $384 $13,998 $7,735 $81.15 $105.04 5,000 $384 $16,433 $10,886 $79.12 $88.50 10,000 $512 $20,389 $15,183 $203.89 $156.95 H H Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $3,652 $3,438 $228.23 $318.48 500 $256 $4,565 $4,584 $304.31 $343.77 1,000 $256 $6,086 $6,302 $213.02 $12.80 2,000 $384 $8,216 $6,302 $50.72 $85.94 5,000 $384 $9,738 $8,881 $42.60 $71.31 10,000 $512 $11,868 $12,318 $118.68 $128.30 I Institutional 500 $256 $7,304 $4,870 $91.29 $98.74 2,500 $512 $9,129 $6,589 $109.55 $80.21 5,000 $512 $11,868 $8,594 $85.21 $5.12 10,000 $768 $16,129 $8,594 $18.26 $24.83 25,000 $768 $18,867 $12,318 $18.26 $19.36 50,000 $1,024 $23,432 $16,902 $46.86 $35.85 I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $304.31 $318.48 500 $256 $5,782 $4,584 $304.31 $286.47 1,000 $256 $7,304 $6,016 $273.88 $12.80 2,000 $384 $10,042 $6,016 $50.72 $85.94 Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2 214 CC 05-06-2025 214 of 554 City of Cupertino, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fee Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees All rates increased by the City's Labor Cost Change (9.7%) Related IBC Class Building Use (e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2 5,000 $384 $11,564 $8,594 $54.78 $65.58 10,000 $512 $14,303 $11,745 $143.03 $122.57 M Mercantile 2,000 $384 $8,521 $7,162 $30.43 $29.87 10,000 $768 $10,955 $9,167 $30.43 $31.51 20,000 $768 $13,998 $12,318 $24.35 $1.92 40,000 $1,152 $18,867 $12,318 $5.58 $8.59 100,000 $1,152 $22,215 $17,475 $5.48 $7.26 200,000 $1,536 $27,692 $24,350 $13.85 $12.94 M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $256 $3,652 $4,011 $76.08 $140.70 1,500 $512 $4,565 $5,443 $101.44 $114.59 3,000 $512 $6,086 $7,162 $71.01 $8.53 6,000 $768 $8,216 $7,162 $16.91 $35.01 15,000 $768 $9,738 $10,313 $14.20 $26.53 30,000 $1,024 $11,868 $14,037 $39.56 $50.20 R-1 Residential—Hotels & Motels 3,000 $384 $10,042 $8,308 $22.82 $24.69 15,000 $768 $12,781 $10,886 $24.35 $22.92 30,000 $768 $16,433 $14,324 $19.27 $1.28 60,000 $1,152 $22,215 $14,324 $4.06 $6.68 150,000 $1,152 $25,867 $20,340 $4.26 $5.60 300,000 $1,536 $32,257 $28,361 $10.75 $9.97 R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $256 $7,912 $6,589 $66.57 $70.67 4,000 $512 $10,042 $8,594 $76.08 $64.46 8,000 $512 $13,085 $11,172 $57.06 $3.20 16,000 $768 $17,650 $11,172 $12.68 $19.10 40,000 $768 $20,693 $15,756 $12.93 $16.40 80,000 $1,024 $25,867 $22,059 $32.33 $28.85 R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $256 $304 $6,589 $0.00 $70.67 - Repeat Unit 4,000 $512 $304 $8,594 $0.00 $64.46 8,000 $512 $304 $11,172 $0.00 $3.20 16,000 $768 $304 $11,172 $1.27 $19.10 40,000 $768 $609 $15,756 $0.00 $16.40 80,000 $1,024 $609 $22,059 $0.76 $28.85 R-3 Dwellings—Custom Homes, Models,1,000 $256 $5,782 $6,875 $20.29 $57.29 First Master Plan 2,500 $256 $6,086 $7,735 $81.15 $57.29 4,000 $256 $7,304 $8,594 $15.22 $84.42 6,000 $512 $7,608 $10,027 $60.86 $28.65 8,000 $512 $8,825 $10,600 $15.22 $84.42 10,000 $768 $9,129 $12,032 $91.29 $128.00 R-3 Dwellings—Production Phase 1,000 $128 $609 $4,870 $0.00 $123.12 of Master Plan (Repeats)2,500 $256 $609 $6,589 $20.29 $133.69 4,000 $256 $913 $8,594 $15.22 $12.80 6,000 $512 $1,217 $8,594 $15.22 $186.21 8,000 $512 $1,522 $12,318 $15.22 $241.98 10,000 $768 $1,826 $16,902 $18.26 $176.70 R-3 Group Care 1,000 $256 $6,695 $6,589 $45.65 $63.70 5,000 $512 $8,521 $8,881 $48.69 $51.57 10,000 $512 $10,955 $11,459 $39.56 $2.56 20,000 $768 $14,911 $11,459 $8.12 $16.23 50,000 $768 $17,346 $16,329 $8.52 $13.12 100,000 $1,024 $21,606 $22,631 $21.61 $23.66 R R Occupancy Tenant Improvements 80 $256 $2,739 $3,724 $190.20 $358.09 400 $256 $3,347 $4,870 $228.23 $358.09 800 $256 $4,260 $6,302 $190.20 $32.00 1,600 $512 $5,782 $6,302 $38.04 $119.36 4,000 $512 $6,695 $9,167 $45.65 $85.18 8,000 $768 $8,521 $12,318 $106.51 $163.58 S Storage 600 $256 $5,173 $4,584 $63.40 $70.35 3,000 $512 $6,695 $6,016 $60.86 $66.84 6,000 $512 $8,521 $8,021 $50.72 $4.27 12,000 $768 $11,564 $8,021 $10.14 $19.10 30,000 $768 $13,390 $11,459 $11.16 $15.18 60,000 $1,024 $16,737 $15,756 $27.90 $27.97 S S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 600 $256 $4,260 $4,297 $50.72 $70.35 3,000 $512 $5,478 $5,729 $50.72 $66.84 6,000 $512 $6,999 $7,735 $40.58 $4.27 12,000 $768 $9,434 $7,735 $8.45 $17.51 30,000 $768 $10,955 $10,886 $9.13 $15.18 60,000 $1,024 $13,694 $15,183 $22.82 $27.01 U Accessory 40 200 215 CC 05-06-2025 215 of 554 City of Cupertino, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fee Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees All rates increased by the City's Labor Cost Change (9.7%) Related IBC Class Building Use (e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2 400 800 1,000 $256 $2,435 $4,011 $30.43 $184.69 2,000 $384 $2,739 $5,729 $45.65 $120.99 4,000 $512 $3,652 $8,021 $91.29 $213.33 Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $256 $3,043 $4,297 $30.43 $84.42 w/o Podium 2,500 $512 $3,652 $5,729 $48.69 $68.75 5,000 $512 $4,869 $7,448 $36.52 $5.12 10,000 $768 $6,695 $7,448 $6.09 $21.01 25,000 $768 $7,608 $10,600 $7.30 $17.07 50,000 $1,024 $9,434 $14,610 $18.87 $31.27 Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $256 $3,347 $4,584 $45.65 $84.42 with Podium 2,500 $512 $4,260 $6,016 $48.69 $80.21 5,000 $512 $5,478 $8,021 $36.52 $5.12 10,000 $768 $7,304 $8,021 $8.12 $22.92 25,000 $768 $8,521 $11,459 $8.52 $18.21 50,000 $1,024 $10,651 $15,756 $21.30 $33.56 All Shell Buildings 500 $256 $3,652 $4,011 $45.65 $84.42 2,500 $512 $4,565 $5,443 $60.86 $68.75 5,000 $512 $6,086 $7,162 $42.60 $5.12 10,000 $768 $8,216 $7,162 $10.14 $21.01 25,000 $768 $9,738 $10,313 $8.52 $15.92 50,000 $1,024 $11,868 $14,037 $23.74 $30.12 1 At Building Permit submittal, a Planning Division Review fee of 20% shall be collected (see Table 3 - Misc. Items) 2 Each additional 100 square feet, or portion thereof, up to the next highest project size threshold. 216 CC 05-06-2025 216 of 554 FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ MECHANICAL FEES Mechanical Permit Fee per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate)per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Other Mechanical Inspections (hourly rate)per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% MECHANICAL UNIT FEES: Install or relocate HVAC system or portion there of Residential each $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Commercial each $392 $430 38.00 9.7% Hood installation that is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood Residential each $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Commercial each $522 $573 51.00 9.8% Any other piece of equipment or appliance not listed in Mechanical schedule. each $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Electrical Permit Fee each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Electrical Plan Check per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Electrical Inspections per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% ELECTRICAL UNIT FEES: Residential Whole-House Rewire (up to 2500 sq ft)each $522 $573 51.00 9.8% Each Additional 1000 sq ft each 1,000 sf $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters First 20 first 20 $87 $95 8.00 9.2% Each Additional each $9 $10 1.00 11.1% Lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp-holding devices First 20 first 20 $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Each Additional each $9 $10 1.00 11.1% Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures each $30 $33 3.00 10.0% Appliances (Install / Repair / Replace) Residential each $44 $48 4.00 9.1% Commercial each $86 $94 8.00 9.3% Power Apparatus - Generator/Transformer or Similar (Install/Repair/Replace) Residential each $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Commercial each $392 $430 38.00 9.7% Services (including Temporary Power) 600 volts or less, up to 200 amperes in rating each $87 $95 8.00 9.2% 600 volts or less, 201 to 1000 amperes in rating each $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating each $392 $430 38.00 9.7% Any other Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors not listed in Electrical Schedule. each $261 $286 25.00 9.6% CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees ELECTRICAL FEES 217 CC 05-06-2025 217 of 554 FEE DESCRIPTION UNIT FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees PLUMBING/GAS FEES Plumbing/Gas Permit Fee each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% PLUMBING/GAS UNIT FEES: Residential Whole-House Water Re-Pipe(up to 2500 sq ft)each $522 $573 51.00 9.8% Each Additional 1000 sq ft each 1,000 sf $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Building sewer lateral (Install / Repair / Replace) Residential each $65 $71 6.00 9.2% Commercial each $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Sewer Clean-out (Install/Repair/Replace) Residential each $65 $71 6.00 9.2% Commercial each $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Building Drain/Waste/Vent Repair Residential per fixture $18 $20 2.00 11.1% Commercial per fixture $26 $29 3.00 11.5% Water Heater Replacement / Installation - All Types Residential each $65 $71 6.00 9.2% Commercial each $196 $215 19.00 9.7% Interceptors - Grease/Sand (Install/Repair/Replace)each $196 $215 19.00 9.7% Water Treatment System (Install/Repair/Replace)each $87 $95 8.00 9.2% Gas piping (Install/Repair/Replace)each $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Install or Replace Water Meter / Service each $65 $71 6.00 9.2% Partial Water Re-pipe Residential per fixture $26 $29 3.00 11.5% Commercial per fixture $17 $19 2.00 11.8% Any other device/fixture not listed in Plumbing Schedule (Install/Repair/Replace) each $131 $144 13.00 9.9% 218 CC 05-06-2025 218 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ Standard Hourly Rate - Building Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Accessibility Hardship Exemption Each $277 $304 27.00 9.7% Acoustical Review Single Family Home/Duplex—New Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Single Family Home/Duplex—Addition/Alteration Each $386 $423 37.00 9.6% Multi-Family/Commercial Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Plan Check Fees Plan Check Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.)Each $1,159 $2,029 870.00 75.1% Plan Check Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.)Each $2,236 $3,879 1,643.00 73.5% Plan Check Fees (500-999 sq. ft.)Each $2,767 $4,343 1,576.00 57.0% Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Inspection Fees Inspection Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.)Each $1,874 $2,789 915.00 48.8% Inspection Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.)Each $2,392 $3,665 1,273.00 53.2% Inspection Fees (500-999 sq. ft.)Each $2,990 $4,581 1,591.00 53.2% Accessory Buildings - Residential Accessory Buildings (Up to 499 sq. ft.)Each $1,716 $1,882 166.00 9.7% Accessory Buildings (500 - 999 sq. ft.)Each $2,516 $2,760 244.00 9.7% Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Plan Check Fees Plan Check Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.)Each $2,453 $2,691 238.00 9.7% Plan Check Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.)Each $3,563 $3,908 345.00 9.7% Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Inspection Fees Inspection Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.)Each $2,612 $2,865 253.00 9.7% Inspection Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.)Each $3,656 $4,010 354.00 9.7% Address Assignment Per hour $233 $256 23.00 9.9% Board of Appeals Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Clerical Fee 1/2 hour $117 $128 11.00 9.4% Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Per hour $255 $280 25.00 9.8% Antenna—Telecom Facility Radio Each $458 $502 44.00 9.6% Cellular/Mobile Phone, alterations to existing facility Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing Each $2,271 $2,491 220.00 9.7% Cellular/Mobile Phone, attached to building Each $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Arbor/Trellis Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Awning/Canopy (supported by building)Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Balcony Addition Each $1,588 $1,742 154.00 9.7% Battery Energy Storage System up to three (3)$655 $718 63.00 9.6% Each Additional Each $386 $423 37.00 9.6% Below Market Rate Escrow Inspection % of Sale Price 0.52% 0.52% Carport Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Certifications Special Inspector Qualifications (initial review)Each $511 $561 50.00 9.8% Special Inspector Qualifications (renewal / update)Each $233 $256 23.00 9.9% Chimney (new)Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Chimney Repair Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Commercial Coach (per unit)Each $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Covered Porch Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Deck (wood)Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Deck Railing Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items 219 CC 05-06-2025 219 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Deferred Submittal (2 hour minimum)Each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Demolition Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf)Base $772 $847 75.00 9.7% Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf)Each 3,000 sf $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Residential (R-3 Occ) (up to 3,000 sf)Base $772 $847 75.00 9.7% Residential (R-3 Occ) (each additional 3,000 sf)Each 3,000 sf $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Swimming Pool Residential Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf)Base $778 $853 75.00 9.6% Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf)Each 3,000 sf $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Disabled Access Compliance Inspection Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Door New door (non structural)Each $386 $423 37.00 9.6% New door (structural shear wall/masonry)Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% Duplicate / Replacement Job Card Each $117 $128 11.00 9.4% Electric Vehicle Charging Station Each $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Extensions Plan Check Applications (within 180 days of Submittal)1 hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Permits (within 180 days of Issuance) Start construction, without plans 1/2 hour $139 $152 13.00 9.4% Resume or complete construction, without plans 1/2 hour $139 $152 13.00 9.4% Start construction, with plans 1 hour $277 $304 27.00 9.7% Resume or complete construction, with plans 2 hours $555 $609 54.00 9.7% Fence Non-masonry, over 7 feet in height Up to 100 l.f.$517 $567 50.00 9.7% Non-masonry, each additional 100 l.f.Each 100 l.f.$131 $144 13.00 9.9% Masonry, over 7 feet in height Up to 100 l.f.$916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Masonry, each additional 100 l.f.Each 100 l.f.$522 $573 51.00 9.8% Fireplace Masonry each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Pre-Fabricated/Metal each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Flag pole (over 20 feet in height)each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Foundation Repair each $1,178 $1,292 114.00 9.7% Inspections Pre-Inspection Fee Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Standard Inspection Hourly Rate Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Progress Inspection Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Partial Inspection Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Courtesy Inspection - 2 hour minimum Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Cancelled inspection w/out advance notice Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Reinspection Per hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Outside of normal business hours (4 hour minimum)Per hour $308 $338 30.00 9.7% Inspection Supplemental Fee (Projects that require more inspections than average, the Building Official may charge additional inspection fees) First 1/2 hour minimum First 1/2 hour $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Each Additional hour Per hour $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Lighting pole Each $655 $718 63.00 9.6% each additional pole Each $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Modular Structures Each $933 $1,023 90.00 9.6% Modification of Technical Code 1 hour $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Occupancy Certificate of Occupancy/Completion Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% 220 CC 05-06-2025 220 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Temporary Occupancy Permit Per six months $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Partition—Commercial, Interior (up to 30 l.f.)Up to 30 l.f.$786 $862 76.00 9.7% Additional partition Each 30 l.f.$261 $286 25.00 9.6% Partition—Residential, Interior (up to 30 l.f.)Up to 30 l.f.$517 $567 50.00 9.7% Additional partition Each 30 l.f.$261 $286 25.00 9.6% Patio Cover / Gazebo Wood frame Up to 300 sf $933 $1,023 90.00 9.6% Metal frame Up to 300 sf $933 $1,023 90.00 9.6% Other frame Up to 300 sf $933 $1,023 90.00 9.6% Additional patio Each 300 sf $400 $439 39.00 9.8% Enclosed prefabricated Sun Room Up to 300 sf $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Photovoltaic System Residential: Systems up to 15kW Each $450 $450 0.00 0.0% Each Additional kW Above 15kW Each Addl kW $15 $15 0.00 0.0% Multi-Family and Commercial: Systems up to 50kW up to 8 kW Each $1,000 $1,000 0.00 0.0% Multi-Family Res/Commercial, each additional 1 kilowatt Each 1 addl kW $7 $7 0.00 0.0% Each Additional kW Above 250kW Each addl kW $5 $5 0.00 0.0% Thermal System Residential: Systems up to 10kW Each $450 $450 0.00 0.0% Each Additional kW Above 10kW Each addl kW $15 $15 0.00 0.0% Multi-Family and Commercial: Systems up to 30kW Each $1,000 $1,000 0.00 0.0% Each Additional kW between 30kW and 260kW Each addl kW $7 $7 0.00 0.0% Each Additional kW Above 260kW Each addl kW $5 $5 0.00 0.0% Pile Foundation Cast in Place Concrete (first 10 piles)Up to 10 $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Additional Piles (increments of 10)Each 10 $800 $878 78.00 9.8% Driven (steel, pre-stressed concrete)Up to 10 $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Additional Piles (increments of 10)Each 10 $800 $878 78.00 9.8% Product Review Per hour $255 $280 25.00 9.8% Plan Review Standard Plan Review Hourly Rate Per hour $277 $304 27.00 9.7% Overtime Plan Review (4 hour minimum) Per hour $325 $356 31.00 9.5% Pre-Submittal Plan Review (2 hour minimum)Per hour $277 $304 27.00 9.7% Expedited Plan Review Each 1.5x Plan Check Fee 1.5x Plan Check Fee Plan Review Supplemental Fee (after 2nd review) First 1/2 hour minimum First 1/2 hour $278 $305 27.00 9.7% Pre-Construction Meeting Each $450 $494 44.00 9.8% Remodel—Residential Kitchen (up to 300 sq. ft.)Each $1,039 $1,140 101.00 9.7% Bath (up to 300 sq. ft.)Each $1,039 $1,140 101.00 9.7% Other Remodel (up to 300 sq. ft.)Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 300)Per s.f.$2.29 $2.51 0.22 9.7% Other Remodel (1000 sq. ft.)Each $2,516 $2,760 244.00 9.7% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 1000)Per s.f.$0.53 $0.58 0.05 9.7% Other Remodel (2500+ sq. ft.)Each $3,316 $3,637 321.00 9.7% Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 2500)Per s.f.$0.27 $0.29 0.03 9.7% 221 CC 05-06-2025 221 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Re-roof Residential (maximum $500 per building)Each 100 sf $25 $27 2.00 8.0% Multi-Family Dwelling (maximum $500 per building)Each 100 sf $25 $27 2.00 8.0% Commercial Commercial (first 5,000 sf)Each $639 $701 62.00 9.7% Commercial (each additional 2,500 sf)Each 2,500 sf $261 $286 25.00 9.6% Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry) Standard (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f.$800 $878 78.00 9.8% Special Design, 3-10' high (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$1,733 $1,901 168.00 9.7% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f.$1,061 $1,164 103.00 9.7% Special Design, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$1,994 $2,187 193.00 9.7% Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f.$1,322 $1,450 128.00 9.7% Gravity/Crib Wall, 0-10' high (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$1,733 $1,901 168.00 9.7% Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f.$1,061 $1,164 103.00 9.7% Gravity/Crib Wall, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$1,994 $2,187 193.00 9.7% Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f.$1,322 $1,450 128.00 9.7% Revisions $266 $292 26.00 9.8% Sauna—steam Each $916 $1,005 89.00 9.7% Siding Stone and Brick Veneer (interior or exterior)Up to 400 sf $639 $701 62.00 9.7% All Other Up to 400 sf $508 $557 49.00 9.6% Additional siding Each 400 sf $131 $144 13.00 9.9% Signs Directional Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Each additional Directional Sign Each $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Ground/Roof/Projecting Signs Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Master Plan Sign Check Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Rework of any existing Ground Sign Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Other Sign Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Reinspection Fee Each $124 $136 12.00 9.7% Wall/Awning Sign, Non-Electric Each $386 $423 37.00 9.6% Wall/Awning Sign, Electric Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Skylight 50 sf or less (cumulative area)Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Greater than 50 sf or structural Each $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Stairs—First Flight First flight $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Each additional flight Per flight $269 $295 26.00 9.7% Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 100 l.f.) First 100 l.f.$655 $718 63.00 9.6% each additional 100 l.f.Each 100 l.f.$131 $144 13.00 9.9% over 8' high (up to 100 l.f.) First 100 l.f.$786 $862 76.00 9.7% each additional 100 l.f.Each 100 l.f.$131 $144 13.00 9.9% Stucco Applications Base Up to 400 sf $508 $557 49.00 9.6% Additional Stucco Application Each 400 sf $131 $144 13.00 9.9% 222 CC 05-06-2025 222 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2024-25 Fee FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee YOY $ ▲YOY % ▲ CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Swimming Pool/Spa Vinyl-lined Each $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Fiberglass Each $1,194 $1,310 116.00 9.7% Gunite (up to 800 sf)Each $1,716 $1,882 166.00 9.7% Additional pool (over 800 sf)Each 100 sf $400 $439 39.00 9.8% Commercial pool (up to 800 sf)Each $2,910 $3,192 282.00 9.7% Additional pool (over 800 sf)Each 100 sf $800 $878 78.00 9.8% Spa or Hot Tub (Pre-fabricated)Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8%5.8% Temporary Structures Each $786 $862 76.00 9.7% Tenant Improvement Preparation Each $517 $567 50.00 9.7% Window or Sliding Glass Door Replacement (first 8 windows)First 8 $378 $415 37.00 9.8% Replacement (each additional 8 windows)Each 8 $131 $144 13.00 9.9% New Window (non structural)Each $324 $355 31.00 9.6% New window (structural shear wall/masonry)Each $458 $502 44.00 9.6% Bay Window (structural) Each $458 $502 44.00 9.6% Planning Department Review fee (New Construction and Additions) (Payable at permit submittal)Each 20% of plan review and inspection fees 20% of plan review and inspection fees Planning Hourly Rate (Misc Reviews)Per hour Refer to Schedule C Refer to Schedule C Housing Mitigation In-lieu fees (Payable at Building Permit issuance)Per sq. ft.Refer to Schedule C Refer to Schedule C Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code fees (Payable at Building Permit issuance)Per sq. ft.Refer to Schedule C Refer to Schedule C Wireless Master Plan fee (Payable at Building Permit issuance)Each Refer to Schedule C Refer to Schedule C Refunds - Plan Check Fees 1st review not started (within 3 Business of Submittal)100% of Plan Review Fees Plan review more than 3 Business Days after the Date of Submittal No refund Refunds - Building Permit Fees No inspections and permit is active (not expired)80% of permit fees No inspections and permit is expired No refund Inspections were provided No refund Work without permit - based on current permit and plan check fees Double fees NOTE: Fee Adjustments: In instances where the strict application of fees from this schedule would constitute a substantial inequity to an applicant or to the City, the Chief Building Official shall be authorized to adjust such fees on a case-by-case basis. Any such adjustments shall be recorded in writing and entered into the appropriate files. Fees identified in this Table consist of 50% Plan Review Fee and 50% Inspection Fee 223 CC 05-06-2025 223 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule A - General Fee Description Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee All Municipal Code Parking Violations (including County and State fees)Each $85.04 Animal Establishment Permit Each $378.98 Annual Lobbyist Registration Fee Per Lobbyist $304.84 Bingo Permit Annual $268.44 Business License Database Each $31.24 Candidate Statement Fee (County Regulated Fee)Each Current County Registrar Cost City Administrative Fee Each 15% Code Enforcement Abatement/Graffiti Cleanup Each Actual Cost * Hourly rate Hourly $252.65 Substandard Housing Re-Inspection Each $252.65 Community Festivals - One-time Business License (correction)Each $13.23 Community Festivals - Business Partners Each $67.49 Community Festivals - Additional 10' x 10' space (includes an additional table and 2 chairs)Each $12.17 Community Festivals - Non-profit partners Each $12.17 Compilation of New Records Each Actual Cost * Credit Card Transaction Fee Each 3.40% CVC Parking Citation Dismissals Admin Fee (State Regulated Fee)Each $25.00 Damage to City Property Grounds, Streets, Facilities, Traffic Engineering/Maintenance Each Actual Cost * Dangerous Dog Annual Registration Fee Annual $505.30 Sign Each $25.57 Duplicate Business Licenses Each $15.62 Event Video Taping/Editing Each Actual Cost * False Alarms Each $124.95 Farmers Market Each $3.38 Fingerprinting Processing (State Fee $32 plus County Fee $20)Each $75.05 Flea Markets Each $14.31 Public Requests for GIS Printed Maps Standard pre-formatted maps Plotted maps Per Map $38.10 Printed maps Per Map $5.08 Custom request maps Per Map Actual Cost * Prints/plots of aerial photography (see Engineering fees)Per Map Actual Cost * Handbill Permit Each $252.65 Renewals Each $126.33 Late Payment on 30 Day Delinquent City Invoices Each 12% per annum Massage Establishment Fee (Includes fingerprinting/background check and business start-up inspection)Each $568.47 Renewals (Includes two inspections per year)Each $189.49 Massage Managing Employee (Includes fingerprint/background check)Each $505.30 Renewals Each $189.49 Massage Permit Appeal (Denial/Revocation)Each $1,263.26 Municipal Code Book Per Book Vendor Invoice New Business Monthly Reports Each $46.86 Noise Variances/Special Exceptions Each $259.16 Notary Fee (State Regulated Fee)Per Signature $15.00/signature Outside Agency Review / Services Vendor Invoice + City Admin Fee Petitions for Reconsideration Each $386.17 Permit Update Each $126.33 224 CC 05-06-2025 224 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule A - General Fee Description Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Photocopies - per sheet Standard sizes Per Page $0.30 For 11 x 17 sizes or color sheets Per Page $0.70 For Large format prints Per Page $35.29 Fair Political Practices Commission Per Page $0.11 Fair Political Practices Commission (older than five (5) years)Per Page $5.26 Property Liens Administrative Fee Each $252.65 Returned Check Charge First returned check Each $25.00 Subsequent checks Each $35.00 Sign Removal (Public Right-of-Way) (All except Political Signs)Each $25.00 Sign Recovery Fee for Political Signs Each $25.00 Small Income Business License Each $94.49 Solicitor Permit (Includes fingerprinting)Each $505.30 Renewals Each $126.33 Taxi Driver Permit (Includes fingerprinting/background check)Each $1,010.61 Renewals Each $126.33 Tobacco Retailer (County Regulated Fee) Application Fee Each Current County Cost Annual Fee Annual Current County Cost Williamson Act Filings Each $149.83 Video/Audio Service DVD/CD Each $26.45 Flash Drive Each $28.55 * Actual cost is: 1) Fully burdened employee costs as calculated through the 2023 Cost Allocation Plan, and 2) cost of materials, contractors, and supplies. 225 CC 05-06-2025 225 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Each $667 Each $461 Each $1,172 Each Double the permit cost Each $2,432 Each $1,916 Each $3,895 Each/% of Project 5% of Project Costs and/or $282 per inspectionPer Permit $579 Crane Lift No Charge No Charge Each $1,483 Each/% of Improv.Greater of $5365 or 6% of cost of improvement Each $9,195 Each $15,013 Each $1,428 Per Hour $349 Per Hour $349 Each/% of Improv.Greater of $6203 or 5% of cost of improvement Each/% of Improv.Greater of $11768 or 5% of cost of improvement Each $1,743 Per Hour $208 Each *Cost of review + City Administrative Fee Each $697 Each $3,863 Each $2,388 Each $2,388 Each $4,624 Per Unit $6,797 Per Unit $4,215 Per s.f.$10.94 Per s.f.$19.15 Per Room $3,728 Per trip $6,862 Each $16 Each $90 Per Hour $349 - Other (per PM trip) Transportation Permit (State Regulated Fee) - Single - Annual Utility Company - Additional Engineering Investigation or Coordination - Single Family - Multi-Family (Includes apartments, condos, and townhomes) - Retail - Office - Hotel Annexation (plus County filing fee) Certificates of Compliance - Initial Review - Finalize Certificates Lot Line Adjustment Transportation Impact Fee - Commercial Planning Application Review VMT Monitoring Fee Professional Services 3rd Party Consultant Review *Per Outside Agency Review/Services on Schedule A - General Public Works Confirmation Plan Check and Inspection - Stand Alone Building Permit Review Additional Plan Review - 3 or more reviews Revisions to Plans and Permits Review of Public/Private Improvement Plans: - Residential Parcel Map/Tract Map (Map Checking Fee) - Parcel Map (1-4 lots) - Tract Map (> 4 lots) - Small Cell Facility Encroachment Permit Street Cuts Miscellaneous - Minor Street Cuts - Major Street Cuts - Special Major Permit (projects in excess of $30,000 or over 15 working days) Permit Extension FEE DESCRIPTION Encroachment Permits - Minor Encroachment Permits (Local Streets) - Minor Encroachment Permits (Utility) - Major Encroachment Permits (Arterials and Collectors) - Work without Permit Grading permit - <10,000 s.f. lot - 10,000 s.f or greater 226 CC 05-06-2025 226 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Each $809 Deposit $5,014 Each No Charge Each $3,510 Each $5,462 Each $2,848 Each $1,766 Each $1,234 Each $329 Each $1,548 Each $1,260 Each $511 Dwelling unit $4,669 Per acre $6,339 Per acre and $4,548 Per unit $345 Per acre $12,246 Per acre $4,666 Per acre $2,357 No charge Each $476 Each $173 Each $346 Each $2,432 Hour $319 Per Permit 5.8% Storm Management Plan Fee Public Works Staff Time Technology Fee Stormwater Permit Inspections - Commercial Initial Inspection Re-Inspection for Violations Plan Review Fee Single Family Multi-Family Commercial and Industrial Public Educational Uses Public Facility Uses Single-Family Residential greater than one dwelling unit per acre and less than Multiple Family greater than 5.2 dwelling units per acre *Maximum chargeable dwelling units of 20 units per acre. Streamside Permit Master Storm Drain Area Fees: Low-Density Residential (Less than one dwelling unit per acre hillside zoning Floodplain Evaluation/Elevation Certificate Review Permit Parking Study - Application Phase - Implementation phase - Full Vacation Rural/Semi-Rural Classification Application - Application Phase - Implementation phase Certificate of Correction Banners - Large Banners Across Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Events/Parades Block Party Vacation of Public Street ROW/PUE - Summary Vacation FEE DESCRIPTION 227 CC 05-06-2025 227 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Density of Dwelling Units/Ac 0 - 5 $105,000/DU 5 - 10 $60,000/DU 10 - 20 $60,000/DU 20+$54,000/DU Senior Citizen Housing Dev.$30,000/DU $15,000 or proportional to the size of the main DU, whichever is less $562 Actual costs PUBLIC TREE DAMAGE OR REMOVAL FEE SCHEDULE: This fee schedule is defined in Chapter 14.12 and establishes the fee to be paid to the City for damage to and/or removal of public trees. Repeat offenders, intentional actors and professionals, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to the following fees: Public Tree Damage Fee: Public Tree Removal Fee: FEE = UNMODIFIED TREE VALUE x SPECIES RATING x CONDITION RATING For inputs, use the following values: UNMODIFIED TREE Refer to Unmodified Tree Value Table SPECIES RATING Refer to Species Rating Table CONDITION RATING Good = 1.00, Fair = 0.75, Poor = 0.50 The fee for trees less than 4 inches in diameter shall not be reduced by species or condition rating. Trees larger than 40” shall have the fee determined by the most recent edition of the 'Guide for Plant Appraisal', published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, using the trunk formula method. Public Tree Planting Cost: 24" Street Tree 36" Street Tree or Larger 1st time offenders, as defined in Chapter 14.12, shall be subject to a fee of 10% of the Public Tree Damage Fee or 10% of the Public Tree Removal Fee as defined below or $600, whichever is higher, per public tree damaged and/or removed. No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming, or replanting will apply. $100 per cumulative diameter inch of branch or root plus, if any, the actual costs incurred for immediate corrective pruning plus, if any, the calculated costs for future corrective pruning, as may be required to maintain the health of the tree. The fee for each tree removed shall be based upon the unmodified value of the tree removed (based upon diameter), multiplied by the species rating, multiplied by the condition rating. Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee* ADU 750 SF or more** * Park Land Dedication Fees are calculated per Municipal Code section 13.08. On an annual basis, Public Works Department updates the fair market value of ** ADU Park Land Dedication Fee is based on the density of the property per Municipal Code section 13.08, or proportionally to the size of the main dwelling New Public Tree Cost Schedule: 228 CC 05-06-2025 228 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering No additional costs, such as stump removal, trimming or replanting will apply. Unmodified Tree Value Table: Tree size (diameter of trunk) 1” to 2” $348 2” to 3” $348 3” to 4” $1,039 4” to 5” $1,039 5” to 6” $1,404 6” to 7” $1,851 7” to 8” $2,378 8” to 9” $2,987 9” to 10” $3,677 10” to 11”$4,449 11” to 12” $5,301 12” to 13” $6,235 13” to 14” $7,249 14” to 15” $8,345 15” to 16” $9,522 16” to 17” $10,780 17” to 18”$12,120 18” to 19” $13,540 19” to 20” $15,042 20” to 21” $16,625 21” to 22” $18,290 22” to 23” $20,036 23” to 24” $21,862 24” to 25”$23,769 25” to 26” $25,758 26” to 27” $27,829 27” to 28” $29,980 28” to 29” $32,212 29” to 30” $34,527 30” to 31” $36,920 31” to 32”$39,396 32” to 33” $41,954 33” to 34” $44,593 34” to 35” $47,312 35” to 36” $50,113 36” to 37” $52,995 37” to 38” $55,958 38” to 39”$59,003 39” to 40”$62,128 Measurement shall be measured 4.5 feet above the ground level and rounded down to the nearest whole inch. If the tree is multi-trunk, use 1.5 times the diameter of the largest trunk to determine fee. If the tree is removed to the ground, tree inventory data will be used to determine the trunk diameter. If there is tree damage 4-5 feet above the ground, trunk diameter is to be measured 1 foot above ground level and 1 inch is to be subtracted from the diameter to determine fee. 229 CC 05-06-2025 229 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Acacia ACACIA 60 Blackwoodacaia ACACIA MELANOXYLON 60 Trident maple ACER BUERGERIANUM 90 Big leaf maple ACER MACROPHYLLUM**100 Japanese maple ACER PALMATUM 90 Red maple ACER REBRUM 70 Silver maple ACER SACCHARINUM 80 California buckeye AESCULUS CALIFORNICA**100 Red hoursechesnut AESCULUS X CARNEA 90 Tree of heaven AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA 0 Silk tree ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN 50 Black Alder ALNUS GLUTINOSA 80 Strawberry madrone ARBUTUS MARINA 90 Madrone ARBUTUS MENZIESII 100 Hong Kong orchid BAUHINIA BLAKEANA 75 Birch BETULA ALBA 60 Incense cedar CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 80 Horsetail tree CASUARINA EQUISETIFOLIA 75 Blue atlas cedar CEDRUS ATLANTICA**100 Deodora cedar CEDRUS DEODARA**100 Chinese hackberry CELTUS SINENSIS 65 Carob tree CERATONIA SILIQUA 70 Redbud(eastern)CERCIS CANADENSIS 75 Camphor tree CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 70 Citrus CITRUS SP 40 English hawthorn CRATAEGUS LAEVIGATA 70 Cypress CUPRESSACEAE 80 Italian cypress CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIREN 80 Japanese persimmon DIOSPYROS KAKI 40 Loquat ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA 60 Blue gum tree EUCALYPTUS GLOBULUS 70 Eucalyptus EUCALYPTUS SP 60 Misson fig FICUS CARICA 40 Autumn purple ash FRAXINUS AMERICANA 80 Raywood ash FRAXINUS ANGUSTIFOLIA 'RAYWOOD'80 Moraine ash FRAXINUS HOLOTRICHA 80 Shamel ash FRAXINUS UHDEI 80 Modesto ash FRAXINUS VELUTINA 'MODESTO'80 Australian willow GEIJERA PARVIFOLIA 80 Maidenhair GINKO BILOBA 80 Honey locust GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 70 Silk oak tree GREVILLEA ROBUSTA 70 English holly ILLEX AQUIFOLIUM 40 Jacaranda JACARANDA MIMMOSIFOLIA 70 Walnut JUGLANS 70 Species Rating Table 230 CC 05-06-2025 230 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Black walnut JUGLANS HINDSII 70 Chinese flame tree KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA 80 Muskogee crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'MUSKOGEE'80 Nanchez crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'NANCHEZ'80 Tuscarora crape myrtle LAGERSTROMIA 'TUSCARORA'80 Sweet bay LAURUS NOBILIS 80 Japanese privit LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 30 American sweetgum LIQUIDAMBER STYRACIFLUA 40 Tulip tree LIRIODENDRON 60 Brisbane box tree LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS 90 Magnolia MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA RUSSET 75 Magnolia (dwarf)MAGNOLIA GRANDIFOLIA ST MARY 75 Saucer magnolia MAGNOLIA SOLINGIANA 75 Crabapple tree MALUS FLORIBUNDA 90 Apple MALUS SP 40 Mayten tree MAYTENUS 70 Malaleuca(broad leaf)MELALEUCA LEUCADENDRA 60 Malaleuca(narrow leaf)MELALEUCA LINARIFOLIA 60 Dawn redwood METASAQUOIA GLYPTOSTROBOIDES 100 Fruitless mulberry MORUS ALBA 40 Black mulberry MORUS NIGRA 40 Myoprum MYOPORUM LAETUM 70 Oleander tree NERIUM OLEANDER 40 Olive OLEA EUROPAEA 70 Devilwood OSMANTHUS AMERICANUS 0 Palm PALM*40 Avocado PERSEA AMERICANA 60 Red leaf photinia PHOTINIA GLABRA 60 Spruce PICEA 80 Colorado spruce PICEA PUNGENS 80 Colorado blue spruce PICEA PUNGENS 'GLAUCA'80 Italian stone pine PINUS PINEA 90 Pine PINUS SP 30 Chinese pistacio PISTACIA CHINENSIS 80 Lemonwood tree PITTOSPORUM EUGENIOIDES 40 Japanese cheesewood PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 40 London plane 'colombiana'PLATANUS COLUMBIANA 95 Western Sycamore PLATANUS RACEMOSA**100 London plane 'bloodgood'PLATANUS X HISPANICA 'BLOODGOOD'95 Yew pine PODOCURPUS MACROPHYLLUS 75 Poplar POPULUS 60 Flowering cherry PRUNUS AKEBONO 80 Wild Plum PRUNUS AMARACANA 40 Almond tree PRUNUS ALMOND 50 Apricot tree PRUNUS APRICOT 40 Species Rating Table 231 CC 05-06-2025 231 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule B - Engineering Common Name Species Rating% Fruiting cherry PRUNUS AVIUM 0 Carolina cherry PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 60 Purple leaf plum PRUNUS CERASFERA KRAUTER VESUVIUS 70 Peach tree PRUNUS PERSICA 40 Douglas fir PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII 80 Guava PSIDIUM GUAJAVA 40 Pomegranate PUNICA GRANATUM 40 Aristocrat Flowering pear tree PYRUS CALLERYANA 'ARISTOCRAT'75 Bradford flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'BRADFORD'75 Chanticleer flowering pear PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER'75 Evergreen flowering pear PYRUS KAWAKAMII 75 Asian pear PYRUS PYRIFOLIA 40 Oak QUERCUS 90 Coast live oak QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA**100 White oak QUERCUS ALBA 90 Texas red oak QUERCUS BUCKEYI 90 Sierra oak QUERCUS CAMBII 90 Blue oak QUERCUS DOUGLASII**100 Forest green oak QUERCUS FRAINETTO 90 Holly oak QUERCUS ILEX 90 Black oak QUERCUS KELLOGGII**100 Valley oak QUERCUS LOBATA**100 Red oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Cork oak QUERCUS SUBER 90 Southern live oak QUERCUS VIRGINIANA 100 Interior live oak QUERCUS WISLIZENI**100 African sumac RHUS LANCIA 70 Weeping willow SALIX BABYLONICA 40 Wild willow SALIX SCOULERIANA 0 California pepper tree SCHINUS MOLE 40 Brazilian pepper tree SCHINUS TEREBINTHEFOLIUS 40 Coast redwood SEQUIOA SEMPRIVIRONS 95 Giant sequioa SEQUOIADENDRON GIGANTEUM 80 Japanese pogoda SOPHORIA JAPONICA 70 Chinese tallow TRIADICA SEBIFERA 50 Water gum TRISTANIA LAURINA 70 Bosque chinese elm ULMAS PARVIFOLIA 'BOSQUE'90 Chinese elm ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 70 Siberian elm ULMUS PUMILA 60 Bay laurel UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA**100 Mexican fan palm WASHINGTON ROBUSTA 0 Spanish dagger yucca YUCCA GLORIOSA 0 Zelkova ZELKOVA SERRATA 65 *All palms on Palm Avenue are protected heritage trees and will be rated @ 100% **Protected tree species Species Rating Table 232 CC 05-06-2025 232 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule C - Planning DEFINITIONS A. Parcel Map: Subdivisions, including ministerial subdivisions - up to four (4) parcels (CMC Chapter 18.20). B. Tentative map: Subdivisions - five (5) or more parcels (CMC Chapter 18.16). P. Legal Noticing Fee: Assessed for all permit applications that require noticing (CMC Chapter 19.12). O. Appeal: A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by the approval authority. Fee Exemption for: an appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision subject to the appeal, an appointed public official serving on a board that is directly affected by the decision and City Council members. At the conclusion of a City Council appeal hearing, it may choose to, at its sole discretion, refund all, a portion of, or none of the appeal fee (CMC Chapter 19.12). N. Extension Permit: A one-time one-year extension of the planning permit expiration date (CMC Chapter 19.12). C. Minor: for ten thousand square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or six or fewer residential units (CMC Chapter 19.12) D. Major: for more than ten thousand square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or greater than six residential units (CMC Chapter 19.12). E. Minor Architectural and Site Approval - Duplex/Residential: Architectural approval of single family homes in a planned development zoning district, redevelopment or modification of duplexes, and associated landscaping, where such review is required (CMC Chapter 19.12). F. Minor Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where such review is required (CMC Chapter 19.12). G. Major Architectural and Site Approval: Architectural approval of all other development projects (CMC Chapter 19.12). H. Minor Modification: An application that is administratively reviewed by staff either at an advertised public hearing/meeting or in a non-hearing process (CMC Chapter 19.164). I. Exceptions: An exception to the zoning standards for which an exception process and findings are identified in the Municipal Code. These include Fence, Sign, Height, Hillside, Parking, R-1, A, A-1, and R1 cluster zone exceptions. This also includes exceptions identified in the City's Specific Plans (CMC Chapter 19.12 and Title 20). J. Project Review Meeting: Request for a one hour meeting by an applicant to review a project with City staff without any written feedback. K. Preliminary Review: One round of informal review of any proposed project with written feedback from City staff. L. Temporary Sign Permit: A review of a temporary sign application for banners, A-frame signs and other temporary signs (CMC Chapter 19.104). M. Sign Permit: For signs that require a public meeting such as freeway oriented signage, electronic readerboard signs etc. (CMC Chapter 19.104) 233 CC 05-06-2025 233 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule C - Planning Fee Description1 Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Planning Staff Hourly Rate2 Per Hour $318 General Plan Authorization Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Zoning Zoning Map Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Zoning Text Amendment Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Single-Story Overlay District Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Study Session Deposit Staff Hourly Rate Subdivision Parcel Map (See Definition A)Each $30,047 Tentative Map (See Definition B)Each $51,639 Conditional Use/Development Permit Temporary Use Permit Each $5,573 Administrative Conditional Use Permit Each $11,761 Minor (See Definition C)Each $28,250 Major (See Definition D)Each $43,109 Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit Minor (See Definition C)Each $12,744 Major (See Definition D)Each $27,500 Architectural and Site Approval Permit Minor Duplex / Residential (See Definition E)Each $11,728 Minor (See Definition F)Each $18,299 Major (See Definition G)Each $27,917 Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits Minor Residential Permit Each $4,414 Two-Story Permit without Design Review Each $5,523 Two-Story Permit with Design Review Each $6,745 Director Minor Modification (See Definition H)Each $6,030 Ministerial Residential Permit Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit Each $4,992 Exceptions (See Definition I) Fence Exception - R1 & R2 Each $5,126 Fence Exception - Other Each $5,686 Sign Exception Each $7,657 R-1 Exception Each $8,579 Heart of the City Exception Each $27,560 Hillside Exception Each $26,287 Q. Special Events Permit: A request to host a special event for no more than a total of 12 calendar days in a year including, but not limited to, employee holiday party, summer barbeque, any outdoor event where normal operations occur indoors, car sales/show event, events located in parking lots where such uses are not authorized ordinarily. Large events involve an entire shopping center, office or industrial buildings/sites, and other commercial sites. Small events typically involve individual businesses/tenants in a shopping center or building. Staff reserves the right to determine the applicable event type based on the project description provided. Churches/non-profits operating on property in their control are exempt from fees. R. Housing Mitigation Fee: A fee assessed in accordance with the City's General Plan Housing Element, Municipal Code (CMC 19.172) and the City's BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual. Note: Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process. The Director of Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the above criteria. 234 CC 05-06-2025 234 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule C - Planning Fee Description Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Exception - Other Each $8,711 Variance Each $9,961 Reasonable Accommodation Each $1,978 Project Review Meeting (See Definition J)Per Review $2,747 Preliminary Application Review (See Definition K) Single Family Per Review $2,780 Non-Residential (Retail/Industrial/Office/Hotel) <10,000 sf Per Review $6,023 >10,000 sf Per Review $10,475 Residential / Mixed Use: Duplex Per Review $2,184 3-6 Units Per Review $9,627 6-50 Units Per Review $14,862 >50 Units Per Review $21,451 Tree Removal Permit Tree Removal Permit (no Arborist review required) First Tree Per Tree $465 Each Additional Tree Per Tree $183 Tree Removal Permit (Arborist review required) First Tree Per Tree $851 Each Additional Tree Per Tree $274 Retroactive Tree Removal Per Tree $6,055 Heritage Tree Designation Each $463 Tree Management Plan Each $8,721 Signs Temporary Sign Permit (See Definition L)Each $607 Sign Permit (See Definition M)Each $8,262 Sign Program Each $4,888 Planning Commission Interpretation Each $8,834 Extension of Approved Entitlements (See Definition N)Each $2,307 Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Report (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Each Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Major (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Each Contract+Admin Fee Negative Declaration - Minor (Plus State & County Filing Fees)Each Contract+Admin Fee Categorical Exemption (Plus County Filing Fee)Each $440 Appeals (See Definition O) Planning Commission Each $554 City Council Each $554 Miscellaneous Fees Legal Noticing Fee (See Definition P)Each $578 Mercury News Ad Actual Cost + Admin Fee Zoning Verification Letter Each $639 Public Convenience and Necessity Letter (Alcoholic Beverage License)Each $319 Short-Term Rental Each $449 Mobile Vending Registration Fee Each $601 Special Events (See Definition Q) Large Event Each $5,359 Small Event Each $500 Planning Inspection Per Inspection $472 Technology Fee Per Permit 5.80% 235 CC 05-06-2025 235 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule C - Planning Fee Description Unit FY 2025-26 Proposed Fee Fees Assessed with Building Permits Wireless Master Plan Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) Equipment Mounted on Existing Light/Utility Pole Each $11.28 New Personal Wireless Facility (not mounted on light/utility pole)Each $2,458 Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees (at Building Permit Issuance) All Non-Residential and Multi-Family Per s.f.$1.67 Residential Single Family Per s.f.$1.67 General Plan Office Allocation Fee Per s.f.$1.67 Planning Department Review fee (New Construction and Additions) (Payable at permit submittal)Each 20% of Plan Check and Inspection fees FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: 2 Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees 2 (See Definition R) Residential - Ownership Detached Single Family Residence Per s.f.$22.45 Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome Per s.f.$24.70 Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac) Per s.f.$29.94 Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac) Per s.f.$29.94 Residential - Rental Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (up to 35 du/ac) Per s.f.$29.94 Multi-family Attached Townhome, Apartment, or Condominium (over 35 du/ac) Per s.f.$37.42 Non-Residential Office, Research and Development, or Industrial Per s.f.$35.48 Hotel Per s.f.$17.74 Self-storage, employee unit provided Per s.f.$0.66 Self-storage, employee unit not provided Per s.f.$1.40 Warehouse Per s.f.$49.29 Commercial/Retail Per s.f.$14.97 3All Housing Mitigation Fees are assessed in accordance with the BMR Housing Mitigation Manual. Non-residential Housing Mitigation In-lieu Fees are based on the 2015 and the 2020 Supplement to the Non-Residential Nexus Analysis by Keyser Marsten. Residential Housing Mitigation In-lieu Fees are based on the 2015 Nexus Study. These fees increase automatically annually (on July 1 of each year) by the Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers for San Francisco, CA. An administrative fee (15%) will be charged for outside agency review/consultant services/outside services (ads etc.) per Schedule A - General Fees. If plans are submitted on paper, these must be sent to an outside agency for scanning. The cost of scanning the plans, plus the administrative fee per Schedule A - General Fees will be charged. 1 All application fees except those projects subject to the Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee (see note 2) allow for two rounds of review. Any submissions beyond two shall be subject to a fee equal to 50% of the total permit fees paid initially. 2 Applications may be subject to a Planning Staff Hourly Rate fee for applicable staff time, and vendor invoice. These fees apply to projects that require a level of staff support greater than the scope of work included in the regular fee schedule and will be based on the time and materials required to process the entire project. The applicant will be notified if these fees are applicable to their project. The applicant will be required to enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City for such projects. 236 CC 05-06-2025 236 of 554 City of Cupertino, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fee Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees PROPOSED Related IBC Class Building Use (e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost A Assembly 250 $128 $4,565 $4,297 $121.73 $127.39 1,250 $256 $5,782 $5,443 $121.73 $137.51 2,500 $256 $7,304 $7,162 $97.38 $5.12 5,000 $384 $9,738 $7,162 $24.35 $38.20 12,500 $384 $11,564 $10,027 $21.91 $33.11 25,000 $512 $14,303 $14,037 $57.21 $58.20 A A Occupancy Tenant Improvements 500 $256 $3,652 $4,297 $45.65 $84.42 2,500 $512 $4,565 $5,729 $48.69 $80.21 5,000 $512 $5,782 $7,735 $42.60 $5.12 10,000 $768 $7,912 $7,735 $8.12 $21.01 25,000 $768 $9,129 $10,886 $8.52 $18.21 50,000 $1,024 $11,260 $15,183 $22.52 $32.41 B Business 1,000 $256 $5,782 $6,302 $38.04 $56.53 5,000 $512 $7,304 $8,308 $42.60 $51.57 10,000 $512 $9,434 $10,886 $33.47 $28.34 20,000 $768 $12,781 $13,464 $7.10 $6.68 50,000 $768 $14,911 $15,470 $7.30 $12.54 100,000 $1,024 $18,563 $21,486 $18.56 $22.51 B B Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $101.44 $130.03 1,500 $256 $5,782 $4,870 $101.44 $76.39 3,000 $256 $7,304 $6,016 $91.29 $4.27 6,000 $384 $10,042 $6,016 $16.91 $28.65 15,000 $384 $11,564 $8,594 $18.26 $21.86 30,000 $512 $14,303 $11,745 $47.68 $40.86 E Educational 100 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $304.31 $318.48 500 $256 $5,782 $4,584 $304.31 $343.77 1,000 $256 $7,304 $6,302 $273.88 $12.80 2,000 $384 $10,042 $6,302 $50.72 $85.94 5,000 $384 $11,564 $8,881 $54.78 $71.31 10,000 $512 $14,303 $12,318 $143.03 $128.30 E E Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $3,347 $3,438 $228.23 $246.86 500 $256 $4,260 $4,297 $243.45 $286.47 1,000 $256 $5,478 $5,729 $182.59 $12.80 2,000 $384 $7,304 $5,729 $40.58 $76.39 5,000 $384 $8,521 $8,021 $42.60 $65.58 10,000 $512 $10,651 $11,172 $106.51 $116.85 F Factory Industrial 1,000 $256 $6,391 $6,589 $22.82 $49.37 5,000 $512 $7,304 $8,308 $36.52 $51.57 10,000 $512 $9,129 $10,886 $39.56 $28.34 20,000 $768 $13,085 $13,464 $6.09 $6.68 50,000 $768 $14,911 $15,470 $3.65 $12.54 100,000 $1,024 $16,737 $21,486 $16.74 $22.51 F F Occupancy Tenant Improvements 1,000 $256 $5,173 $5,157 $30.43 $49.37 5,000 $512 $6,391 $6,875 $36.52 $45.84 10,000 $512 $8,216 $9,167 $30.43 $2.56 20,000 $768 $11,260 $9,167 $6.09 $12.41 50,000 $768 $13,085 $12,891 $6.09 $10.83 100,000 $1,024 $16,129 $18,048 $16.13 $19.07 H High Hazard 100 $128 $6,391 $4,584 $380.39 $390.10 500 $256 $7,912 $6,016 $486.90 $343.77 1,000 $256 $10,347 $7,735 $365.18 $12.80 2,000 $384 $13,998 $7,735 $81.15 $105.04 5,000 $384 $16,433 $10,886 $79.12 $88.50 10,000 $512 $20,389 $15,183 $203.89 $156.95 H H Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $3,652 $3,438 $228.23 $318.48 500 $256 $4,565 $4,584 $304.31 $343.77 1,000 $256 $6,086 $6,302 $213.02 $12.80 2,000 $384 $8,216 $6,302 $50.72 $85.94 5,000 $384 $9,738 $8,881 $42.60 $71.31 10,000 $512 $11,868 $12,318 $118.68 $128.30 I Institutional 500 $256 $7,304 $4,870 $91.29 $98.74 2,500 $512 $9,129 $6,589 $109.55 $80.21 5,000 $512 $11,868 $8,594 $85.21 $5.12 10,000 $768 $16,129 $8,594 $18.26 $24.83 25,000 $768 $18,867 $12,318 $18.26 $19.36 50,000 $1,024 $23,432 $16,902 $46.86 $35.85 I I Occupancy Tenant Improvements 100 $128 $4,565 $3,438 $304.31 $318.48 500 $256 $5,782 $4,584 $304.31 $286.47 1,000 $256 $7,304 $6,016 $273.88 $12.80 2,000 $384 $10,042 $6,016 $50.72 $85.94 Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2 237 CC 05-06-2025 237 of 554 City of Cupertino, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fee Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees PROPOSED Related IBC Class Building Use (e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2 5,000 $384 $11,564 $8,594 $54.78 $65.58 10,000 $512 $14,303 $11,745 $143.03 $122.57 M Mercantile 2,000 $384 $8,521 $7,162 $30.43 $29.87 10,000 $768 $10,955 $9,167 $30.43 $31.51 20,000 $768 $13,998 $12,318 $24.35 $1.92 40,000 $1,152 $18,867 $12,318 $5.58 $8.59 100,000 $1,152 $22,215 $17,475 $5.48 $7.26 200,000 $1,536 $27,692 $24,350 $13.85 $12.94 M M Occupancy Tenant Improvements 300 $256 $3,652 $4,011 $76.08 $140.70 1,500 $512 $4,565 $5,443 $101.44 $114.59 3,000 $512 $6,086 $7,162 $71.01 $8.53 6,000 $768 $8,216 $7,162 $16.91 $35.01 15,000 $768 $9,738 $10,313 $14.20 $26.53 30,000 $1,024 $11,868 $14,037 $39.56 $50.20 R-1 Residential—Hotels & Motels 3,000 $384 $10,042 $8,308 $22.82 $24.69 15,000 $768 $12,781 $10,886 $24.35 $22.92 30,000 $768 $16,433 $14,324 $19.27 $1.28 60,000 $1,152 $22,215 $14,324 $4.06 $6.68 150,000 $1,152 $25,867 $20,340 $4.26 $5.60 300,000 $1,536 $32,257 $28,361 $10.75 $9.97 R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $256 $7,912 $6,589 $66.57 $70.67 4,000 $512 $10,042 $8,594 $76.08 $64.46 8,000 $512 $13,085 $11,172 $57.06 $3.20 16,000 $768 $17,650 $11,172 $12.68 $19.10 40,000 $768 $20,693 $15,756 $12.93 $16.40 80,000 $1,024 $25,867 $22,059 $32.33 $28.85 R-2 Residential—Apartment Building 800 $256 $304 $6,589 $0.00 $70.67 - Repeat Unit 4,000 $512 $304 $8,594 $0.00 $64.46 8,000 $512 $304 $11,172 $0.00 $3.20 16,000 $768 $304 $11,172 $1.27 $19.10 40,000 $768 $609 $15,756 $0.00 $16.40 80,000 $1,024 $609 $22,059 $0.76 $28.85 R-3 Dwellings—Custom Homes, Models,1,000 $256 $5,782 $6,875 $20.29 $57.29 First Master Plan 2,500 $256 $6,086 $7,735 $81.15 $57.29 4,000 $256 $7,304 $8,594 $15.22 $84.42 6,000 $512 $7,608 $10,027 $60.86 $28.65 8,000 $512 $8,825 $10,600 $15.22 $84.42 10,000 $768 $9,129 $12,032 $91.29 $128.00 R-3 Dwellings—Production Phase 1,000 $128 $609 $4,870 $0.00 $123.12 of Master Plan (Repeats)2,500 $256 $609 $6,589 $20.29 $133.69 4,000 $256 $913 $8,594 $15.22 $12.80 6,000 $512 $1,217 $8,594 $15.22 $186.21 8,000 $512 $1,522 $12,318 $15.22 $241.98 10,000 $768 $1,826 $16,902 $18.26 $176.70 R-3 Group Care 1,000 $256 $6,695 $6,589 $45.65 $63.70 5,000 $512 $8,521 $8,881 $48.69 $51.57 10,000 $512 $10,955 $11,459 $39.56 $2.56 20,000 $768 $14,911 $11,459 $8.12 $16.23 50,000 $768 $17,346 $16,329 $8.52 $13.12 100,000 $1,024 $21,606 $22,631 $21.61 $23.66 R R Occupancy Tenant Improvements 80 $256 $2,739 $3,724 $190.20 $358.09 400 $256 $3,347 $4,870 $228.23 $358.09 800 $256 $4,260 $6,302 $190.20 $32.00 1,600 $512 $5,782 $6,302 $38.04 $119.36 4,000 $512 $6,695 $9,167 $45.65 $85.18 8,000 $768 $8,521 $12,318 $106.51 $163.58 S Storage 600 $256 $5,173 $4,584 $63.40 $70.35 3,000 $512 $6,695 $6,016 $60.86 $66.84 6,000 $512 $8,521 $8,021 $50.72 $4.27 12,000 $768 $11,564 $8,021 $10.14 $19.10 30,000 $768 $13,390 $11,459 $11.16 $15.18 60,000 $1,024 $16,737 $15,756 $27.90 $27.97 S S Occupancy Tenant Improvements 600 $256 $4,260 $4,297 $50.72 $70.35 3,000 $512 $5,478 $5,729 $50.72 $66.84 6,000 $512 $6,999 $7,735 $40.58 $4.27 12,000 $768 $9,434 $7,735 $8.45 $17.51 30,000 $768 $10,955 $10,886 $9.13 $15.18 60,000 $1,024 $13,694 $15,183 $22.82 $27.01 U Accessory 40 200 238 CC 05-06-2025 238 of 554 City of Cupertino, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fee Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 1 Plan Check and Inspection Fees PROPOSED Related IBC Class Building Use (e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Sq. Ft. Permit Tech Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Plan Check Cost Inspection Cost Base Cost1 Cost for each Add. 100 Sq. Ft.1,2 400 800 1,000 $256 $2,435 $4,011 $30.43 $184.69 2,000 $384 $2,739 $5,729 $45.65 $120.99 4,000 $512 $3,652 $8,021 $91.29 $213.33 Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $256 $3,043 $4,297 $30.43 $84.42 w/o Podium 2,500 $512 $3,652 $5,729 $48.69 $68.75 5,000 $512 $4,869 $7,448 $36.52 $5.12 10,000 $768 $6,695 $7,448 $6.09 $21.01 25,000 $768 $7,608 $10,600 $7.30 $17.07 50,000 $1,024 $9,434 $14,610 $18.87 $31.27 Standard Comm. Foundation 500 $256 $3,347 $4,584 $45.65 $84.42 with Podium 2,500 $512 $4,260 $6,016 $48.69 $80.21 5,000 $512 $5,478 $8,021 $36.52 $5.12 10,000 $768 $7,304 $8,021 $8.12 $22.92 25,000 $768 $8,521 $11,459 $8.52 $18.21 50,000 $1,024 $10,651 $15,756 $21.30 $33.56 All Shell Buildings 500 $256 $3,652 $4,011 $45.65 $84.42 2,500 $512 $4,565 $5,443 $60.86 $68.75 5,000 $512 $6,086 $7,162 $42.60 $5.12 10,000 $768 $8,216 $7,162 $10.14 $21.01 25,000 $768 $9,738 $10,313 $8.52 $15.92 50,000 $1,024 $11,868 $14,037 $23.74 $30.12 1 At Building Permit submittal, a Planning Division Review fee of 20% shall be collected (see Table 3 - Misc. Items) 2 Each additional 100 square feet, or portion thereof, up to the next highest project size threshold. 239 CC 05-06-2025 239 of 554 FEE DESCRIPTION Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee MECHANICAL FEES Mechanical Permit Fee Each $292 Stand Alone Mechanical Plan Check (hourly rate)Each $292 Other Mechanical Inspections (hourly rate)Each $292 MECHANICAL UNIT FEES: Install or relocate HVAC system or portion there of Residential Each $286 Commercial Each $430 Hood installation that is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood Residential Each $144 Commercial Each $573 Any other piece of equipment or appliance not listed in Mechanical schedule.Each $286 Electrical Permit Fee Each $292 Electrical Plan Check Each $292 Electrical Inspections Each $292 ELECTRICAL UNIT FEES: Residential Whole-House Rewire (up to 2500 sq ft)Each $573 Each Additional 1000 sq ft Each 1,000 sf $286 Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters First 20 First 20 $95 Each Additional Each $10 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees ELECTRICAL FEES 240 CC 05-06-2025 240 of 554 FEE DESCRIPTION Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees Lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp-holding devices First 20 First 20 $144 Each Additional Each $10 Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures Each $33 Appliances (Install / Repair / Replace) Residential Each $48 Commercial Each $94 Power Apparatus - Generator/Transformer or Similar (Install/Repair/Replace) Residential Each $286 Commercial Each $430 Services (including Temporary Power) 600 volts or less, up to 200 amperes in rating Each $95 600 volts or less, 201 to 1000 amperes in rating Each $286 Over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating Each $430 Any other Electrical apparatus, conduits, and conductors not listed in Electrical Schedule. Each $286 PLUMBING/GAS FEES Plumbing/Gas Permit Fee Each $292 Stand Alone Plumbing Plan Check Each $292 Other Plumbing and Gas Inspections Each $292 PLUMBING/GAS UNIT FEES: Residential Whole-House Re-Plumbing (up to 2500 sq ft)Each $573 Each Additional 1000 sq ft Each 1,000 sf $286 Building sewer lateral (Install / Repair / Replace) Residential Each $71 Commercial Each $144 Sewer Clean-out (Install/Repair/Replace) Residential Each $71 Commercial Each $144 Building Drain/Waste/Vent Repair Residential Each $20 Commercial Each $29 241 CC 05-06-2025 241 of 554 FEE DESCRIPTION Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 2 Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Fees Water Heater Replacement / Installation - All Types Residential Each $71 Commercial Each $215 Interceptors - Grease/Sand (Install/Repair/Replace)Each $215 Water Treatment System (Install/Repair/Replace)Each $95 Gas piping (Install/Repair/Replace)Each 4 $144 Install or Replace Water Meter / Service Each $71 Partial Water Re-pipe Residential Per fixture $29 Commercial Per fixture $19 Any other device/fixture not listed in Plumbing Schedule (Install/Repair/Replace) Each $144 242 CC 05-06-2025 242 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee Standard Hourly Rate - Building Per hour $292 Accessibility Hardship Exemption Each $304 Acoustical Review Single Family Home/Duplex—New Each $718 Single Family Home/Duplex—Addition/Alteration Each $423 Multi-Family/Commercial Each $718 Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Plan Check Fees Plan Check Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.)Each $2,029 Plan Check Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.)Each $3,879 Plan Check Fees (500-999 sq. ft.)Each $4,343 Additions (Non Hillside R3 Occupancy) - Inspection Fees Inspection Fees (up to 250 sq. ft.)Each $2,789 Inspection Fees (251 - 499 sq. ft.)Each $3,665 Inspection Fees (500-999 sq. ft.)Each $4,581 Accessory Buildings - Residential Accessory Buildings (Up to 499 sq. ft.)Each $1,882 Accessory Buildings (500 - 999 sq. ft.)Each $2,760 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Plan Check Fees Plan Check Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.)Each $2,691 Plan Check Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.)Each $3,908 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) - Inspection Fees Inspection Fees (up to 499 sq. ft.)Each $2,865 Inspection Fees (500 - 999 sq. ft.)Each $4,010 Address Assignment Per hour $256 Board of Appeals Per hour $292 Clerical Fee 1/2 hour $128 Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Per hour $280 Antenna—Telecom Facility Radio Each $502 Cellular/Mobile Phone, alterations to existing facility Each $718 Cellular/Mobile Phone, free-standing Each $2,491 Cellular/Mobile Phone, attached to building Each $1,310 Arbor/Trellis Each $718 Awning/Canopy (supported by building)Each $718 Balcony Addition Each $1,742 Battery Energy Storage System up to three (3)$718 Each Additional Each $423 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items 243 CC 05-06-2025 243 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Below Market Rate Escrow Inspection % of Sale Price 0.52% Carport Each $1,005 Certifications Special Inspector Qualifications (initial review)Each $561 Special Inspector Qualifications (renewal / update)Each $256 Chimney (new)Each $1,005 Chimney Repair Each $567 Commercial Coach (per unit)Each $1,310 Covered Porch Each $1,005 Deck (wood)Each $1,005 Deck Railing Each $567 Deferred Submittal (2 hour minimum)Each $292 Demolition Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf)Base $847 Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf)Each 3,000 sf $295 Residential (R-3 Occ) (up to 3,000 sf)Base $847 Residential (R-3 Occ) (each additional 3,000 sf)Each 3,000 sf $295 Swimming Pool Residential Each $567 Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (up to 3,000 sf)Base $853 Swimming Pool Multi-Family and Commercial (each additional 3,000 sf) Each 3,000 sf $286 Disabled Access Compliance Inspection Per hour $292 Door New door (non structural)Each $423 New door (structural shear wall/masonry)Each $718 Duplicate / Replacement Job Card Each $128 Electric Vehicle Charging Station Each $292 Extensions Plan Check Applications (within 180 days of Submittal)1 hour $292 Permits (within 180 days of Issuance) Start construction, without plans 1/2 hour $152 Resume or complete construction, without plans 1/2 hour $152 Start construction, with plans 1 hour $304 Resume or complete construction, with plans 2 hours $609 Fence Non-masonry, over 7 feet in height Up to 100 l.f.$567 Non-masonry, each additional 100 l.f.Each 100 l.f.$144 Masonry, over 7 feet in height Up to 100 l.f.$1,005 Masonry, each additional 100 l.f.Each 100 l.f.$573 244 CC 05-06-2025 244 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Fireplace Masonry each $1,005 Pre-Fabricated/Metal each $567 Flag pole (over 20 feet in height)each $567 Foundation Repair each $1,292 Inspections Pre-Inspection Fee Per hour $292 Standard Inspection Hourly Rate Per hour $292 Progress Inspection Per hour $292 Partial Inspection Per hour $292 Courtesy Inspection - 2 hour minimum Per hour $292 Cancelled inspection w/out advance notice Per hour $292 Reinspection Per hour $292 Outside of normal business hours (2 hour minimum)Per hour $338 Inspection Supplemental Fee (Projects that require more inspections than average, the Building Official may charge additional inspection fees) First 1/2 hour minimum First 1/2 hour $144 Each Additional hour Per hour $286 Lighting pole Each $718 each additional pole Each $295 Modular Structures Each $1,023 Modification of Technical Code 1 hour $292 Occupancy Certificate of Occupancy/Completion Each $567 Temporary Occupancy Permit Per six months $567 Partition—Commercial, Interior (up to 30 l.f.)Up to 30 l.f.$862 Additional partition Each 30 l.f.$286 Partition—Residential, Interior (up to 30 l.f.)Up to 30 l.f.$567 Additional partition Each 30 l.f.$286 Patio Cover / Gazebo Wood frame Up to 300 sf $1,023 Metal frame Up to 300 sf $1,023 Other frame Up to 300 sf $1,023 Additional patio Each 300 sf $439 Enclosed prefabricated Sun Room Up to 300 sf $1,005 245 CC 05-06-2025 245 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Photovoltaic System Residential Systems up to 15kW Each $450 Each Additional kW Above 15kW Each Addl kW $15 Multi-Family and Commercial: Systems up to 50kW up to 8 kW Each $1,000 Multi-Family Res/Commercial, each additional 1 kilowatt Each 1 addl kW $7 Each Additional kW Above 250kW Each addl kW $5 Thermal System Residential: Systems up to 10kW Each $450 Each Additional kW Above 10kW Each addl kW $15 Multi-Family and Commercial: Systems up to 30kW Each $1,000 Each Additional kW between 30kW and 260kW Each addl kW $7 Each Additional kW Above 260kW Each addl kW $5 Pile Foundation Cast in Place Concrete (first 10 piles)Up to 10 $1,310 Additional Piles (increments of 10)Each 10 $878 Driven (steel, pre-stressed concrete)Up to 10 $1,310 Additional Piles (increments of 10)Each 10 $878 Product Review Per hour $280 Plan Review Standard Plan Review Hourly Rate Per hour $304 Overtime Plan Review (2 hour minimum) Per hour $356 Pre-Submittal Plan Review (2 hour minimum)Per hour $304 Expedited Plan Review Each 1.5x Plan Check Fee Plan Review Supplemental Fee (after 2nd review) First 1/2 hour minimum First 1/2 hour $305 Pre-Construction Meeting Each $494 Remodel—Residential Kitchen (up to 300 sq. ft.)Each $1,140 Bath (up to 300 sq. ft.)Each $1,140 Other Remodel (up to 300 sq. ft.)Each $1,005 Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 300)Per s.f.$2.51 Other Remodel (1000 sq. ft.)Each $2,760 Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 1000)Per s.f.$0.58 Other Remodel (2500+ sq. ft.)Each $3,637 Additional remodel (per sq. ft. above 2500)Per s.f.$0.29 246 CC 05-06-2025 246 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Re-roof Residential (maximum $500 per building)Each 100 sf $27 Multi-Family Dwelling (maximum $500 per building)Each 100 sf $27 Commercial Commercial (first 5,000 sf)Each $701 Commercial (each additional 2,500 sf)Each 2,500 sf $286 Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry) Standard (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$1,310 Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f.$878 Special Design, 3-10' high (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$1,901 Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f.$1,164 Special Design, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$2,187 Additional retaining wall Each 50 l.f.$1,450 Gravity/Crib Wall, 0-10' high (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$1,901 Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f.$1,164 Gravity/Crib Wall, over 10' high (up to 50 l.f.)Up to 50 l.f.$2,187 Additional Gravity/Crib Wall Each 50 l.f.$1,450 Revisions $292 Sauna—steam Each $1,005 Siding Stone and Brick Veneer (interior or exterior)Up to 400 sf $701 All Other Up to 400 sf $557 Additional siding Each 400 sf $144 Signs Directional Each $567 Each additional Directional Sign Each $295 Ground/Roof/Projecting Signs Each $567 Master Plan Sign Check Each $567 Rework of any existing Ground Sign Each $567 Other Sign Each $567 Reinspection Fee Each $136 Wall/Awning Sign, Non-Electric Each $423 Wall/Awning Sign, Electric Each $567 Skylight 50 sf or less (cumulative area)Each $567 Greater than 50 sf or structural Each $295 Stairs—First Flight First flight $567 Each additional flight Per flight $295 247 CC 05-06-2025 247 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 100 l.f.) First 100 l.f.$718 each additional 100 l.f.Each 100 l.f.$144 over 8' high (up to 100 l.f.) First 100 l.f.$862 each additional 100 l.f.Each 100 l.f.$144 Stucco Applications Base Up to 400 sf $557 Additional Stucco Application Each 400 sf $144 Swimming Pool/Spa Vinyl-lined Each $1,310 Fiberglass Each $1,310 Gunite (up to 800 sf)Each $1,882 Additional pool (over 800 sf)Each 100 sf $439 Commercial pool (up to 800 sf)Each $3,192 Additional pool (over 800 sf)Each 100 sf $878 Spa or Hot Tub (Pre-fabricated)Each $567 Technology Fee Per Permit 5.8% Temporary Structures Each $862 Tenant Improvement Preparation Each $567 Window or Sliding Glass Door Replacement (first 8 windows)First 8 $415 Replacement (each additional 8 windows)Each 8 $144 New Window (non structural)Each $355 New window (structural shear wall/masonry)Each $502 Bay Window (structural) Each $502 Planning Department Review fee (New Construction and Additions) (Payable at permit submittal)Each 20% of plan review and inspection fees Planning Hourly Rate (Misc Reviews)Per hour Refer to Schedule C Housing Mitigation In-lieu fees (Payable at Building Permit issuance)Per sq. ft.Refer to Schedule C Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code fees (Payable at Building Permit issuance) Per sq. ft.Refer to Schedule C Wireless Master Plan fee (Payable at Building Permit issuance)Each Refer to Schedule C Refunds - Plan Check Fees 1st review not started (within 3 Business of Submittal)100% of Plan Review Fees Plan review more than 3 Business Days after the Date of Submittal No refund 248 CC 05-06-2025 248 of 554 Work Item Unit FY 2025-26 Prop. Fee CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA Resolution 25-XXX Fees Effective July 6, 2025 Schedule D - Table 3 Miscellaneous Items Refunds - Building Permit Fees No inspections and permit is active (not expired)80% of permit fees No inspections and permit is expired No refund Inspections were provided No refund Work without permit - based on current permit and plan check fees Double fees NOTE: Fees identified in this Table consist of 50% Plan Review Fee and 50% Inspection Fee Fee Adjustments: In instances where the strict application of fees from this schedule would constitute a substantial inequity to an applicant or to the City, the Chief Building Official shall be authorized to adjust such fees on a case-by-case basis. Any such adjustments shall be recorded in writing and entered into the appropriate files. 249 CC 05-06-2025 249 of 554 RESOLUTION NO. 25-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING PREVIOUS FEE SCHEDULES WHEREAS, the State of California requires fees charged for service rendered not to exceed the cost of delivering said services; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held to review user fees; and WHEREAS, in 2023 the City conducted a Cost of Service (User Fee) Study and conducts annual updates pursuant to economic factors discussed in the staff report for this item to ensure that the fees charged do not exceed the cost of delivering the services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby: 1. Amend the user fees per attached Schedules A, B, C, and D to this resolution effective July 6, 2025. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of May, 2025, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ________ Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino ________________________ Date ATTEST: ________ Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk ________________________ Date 250 CC 05-06-2025 250 of 554 RESOLUTION NO. 24-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council has identified a need to adopt a policy governing general guidelines for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive user fee schedule to ensure the City adequately recovers costs for the provision of services, benefits, or privileges (Services) in an efficient, legal, and accountable manner; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2024, the City Council considered proposed policy at a duly noticed special meeting of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Policy shall be effective on July 14, 2024. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 14th day of May, 2024, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: Mohan, Fruen, Chao, Moore, Wei NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SIGNED: Sheila Mohan, Mayor City of Cupertino Date ATTEST: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk Date 6/3/24 6/3/24 251 CC 05-06-2025 251 of 554 USER FEE COST RECOVERY POLICY Citywide Policy Manual Attachments: N/A Effective Date: July 14, 2024 per Resolution 24-041 Responsible Department: Administrative Services Related Policies & Notes: Purpose To provide general guidelines for establishing and maintaining a comprehensive user fee schedule to ensure the City adequately recovers costs for the provision of services, benefits, or privileges (Services) in an efficient, legal, and accountable manner. Background The City conducts comprehensive Cost Allocation Plans (CAP) and Fee Studies on a seven-year cycle to assess the alignment of current fees with the actual cost of providing each service. CAP establishes a data-driven methodology for distributing administrative and overhead charges to programs and services, while a Fee Study determines the full cost of services for which fees are charged. The most recent study, presented during the February 6,2024, City Council Meeting, recommended the adoption of a formal cost recovery policy across all service sectors, including General, Engineering, Building, Planning, and Parks and Recreation. The CAP and Fee Study guided the crafting of the policy by City staff, aligning closely with Council directives and recommendations. Between CAP and fee studies, the City adjusts fee schedules annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the Bay Area Construction Cost Index (CCI), or changes in budgeted labor costs. These adjustments require annual review and approval by the City Council to ensure fees accurately reflect current service costs, accommodate new City services, and eliminate fees for discontinued services. Policy The policy has three main components: Provision for ongoing review Process of establishing cost recovery levels o Factors to be Considered Target Cost Recovery Levels o General ranges o Target cost recovery by service area Attachment A 252 CC 05-06-2025 252 of 554 Provision for ongoing review Fees will undergo annual reviews to ensure they remain aligned with changes in the cost of living and evolving methods or levels of service delivery. To facilitate an evidence-based approach to this review process, the City will conduct a CAP and Fee Study every seven years. During the interim periods, fee adjustments will be made based on annual cost factors, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the Bay Area Construction Cost Index (CCI), or changes in budgeted labor costs. Furthermore, should a significant fee increase be warranted after the completion of the study, the fee structure may be phased in over a period of 2-3 years to reach the desired cost recovery rate. This proactive approach ensures that our fee structures remain fair, transparent, and reflective of current economic conditions and service standards. Process of establishing user fee cost recovery levels The following factors will be considered when setting service fees and cost recovery levels: 1.Community-wide vs. private benefit a.The use of general purpose revenue is appropriate for community-wide services while user fees are appropriate for services that are of private benefit to individuals or groups. Full cost recovery is not always appropriate. 2.Service recipient vs. service driver a.Particularly for services associated with regulated activities (development review, code enforcement), from which the community eventually benefits, cost recovery from the "driver" of the need for the service (applicant, violator) is appropriate. 3.Consistency with City public policies and objectives a.City policies and Council goals focused on long-term improvements to community quality of life may also impact desired fee levels, as fees can be used to change community behaviors, promote certain activities, or provide funding for the pursuit of specific community goals, for example, health and safety, environmental stewardship. 4.Impact on demand (elasticity) a.Pricing of services can significantly impact demand. At full cost recovery, for example, the City is providing services for which there is a genuine market not over-stimulated by artificially low prices. Conversely, high-cost recovery may negatively impact lower-income groups, and this can work against public policy outcomes, especially if the services are specifically designed to serve particular groups. 5.Discounted Rates and Surcharges a.Rates may be discounted to accommodate lower income groups or groups who are the target of the service, such as senior citizens or residents. b.Higher rates are considered appropriate for non-residents to further reduce general fund subsidization of services. Attachment A 253 CC 05-06-2025 253 of 554 6. Feasibility of Collection a. It may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to appropriately identify and charge each user for the specific services received. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the administrative cost of collection. Target cost recovery levels 1. Low-cost recovery levels (0% - 30%) are appropriate if: a. There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received b. Collecting fees is not cost-effective c. There is no intent to limit the use of the service d. The service is non-recurring e. Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements f. The public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service 2. Services having factors associated with both cost recovery levels would be subsidized at a mid-level of cost recovery (31% - 80%). 3. High-cost recovery levels (81% - 100%) are appropriate if: a. The individual user or participant receives the benefit of the service b. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do provide the service c. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received d. The use of the service is specifically discouraged e. The service is regulatory in nature Schedule/Service Area Target Cost Recovery Range Schedule A – General 100% Schedule B – Engineering (PW) 75-100% Schedule C – Building 80-100% Schedule D – Planning 50-80% Schedule E – Recreation* Market-driven Parks and Recreation Fees exclusion – fees will be administratively updated per Resolutions No. 04- 350, authorizing the City Manager to set all recreation fees. Revisions: Attachment A 254 CC 05-06-2025 254 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13883 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 11. Subject:Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 to Receive a Report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts. Receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™255 CC 05-06-2025 255 of 554 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 to Receive a Report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts. Recommended Action Receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3. Background As part of the FY 2024-25 Mid-Year Financial Report on March 4, 2024. City staff informed City Council of vacancy reporting requirements ahead of budget adoption. Assembly Bill ("AB") 2561, codified in Government Code section 3502.3, passed in 2024, and requires public agencies to hold a public hearing to address the status of job vacancies prior to the adoption of the upcoming final budget. During this public hearing, the City must present information on the status of vacancies and the City's recruitment and retention efforts. If necessary, the City will identify necessary changes to policies, procedures, or recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process. This public hearing will ensure compliance with the new law. Reasons for Recommendation Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2561, passed in 2024, requires public agencies to hold a public hearing to address the status of job vacancies prior to the adoption of the upcoming final budget. Staff will present the following required information at the public hearing: 1. The status of vacancies at the City of Cupertino. 2. Information on the City of Cupertino’s recruitment and retention efforts. 3. Obstacles in the City of Cupertino's policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may create challenges in the hiring process. 256 CC 05-06-2025 256 of 554 Based on the findings, staff recommends that Council receive the informational report on City of Cupertino Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3. As of April 14, 2025, there are no bargaining units with a vacancy rate exceeding 20%. If the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit meets or exceeds 20% of the total number of authorized full-time positions, the staff presentation will also include the following information: 1. The total number of job vacancies within the bargaining unit. 2. The total number of applicants for vacant positions within the bargaining unit. 3. The average number of days to complete the hiring process from when a position is posted. 4. Opportunities to improve compensation and other working conditions. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact. City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description None California Environmental Quality Act No California Environmental Quality Act impact. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Vanessa Guerra, Human Resources Manager Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Bargaining Unit Total Positions Vacant Positions Vacancy Rate As of 4/14/2025 Cupertino Employees’ Association (CEA)/IFPTE Local 21 72 8 11.1% Operating Engineers Local No. 3 Union, AFL-CIO (OE3) 52 5 9.6% Unrepresented Management/Appointed Employees 78 8 10.3% TOTAL (Does not include 5 Council positions) 202 21 10.4% 257 CC 05-06-2025 257 of 554 Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Floy Andrews, City Attorney Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A – Assembly Bill 2561 258 CC 05-06-2025 258 of 554 Assembly Bill No. 2561 CHAPTER 409 An act to add Section 3502.3 to the Government Code, relating to public employment. [ Approved by Governor September 22, 2024. Filed with Secretary of State September 22, 2024. ] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2561, McKinnor. Local public employees: vacant positions. Existing law, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (act), authorizes local public employees, as defined, to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on matters of labor relations. The act requires the governing body of a public agency to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations and to consider fully presentations that are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members before arriving at a determination of policy or course of action. This bill would, as specified, require a public agency to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts at a public hearing at least once per fiscal year, and would entitle the recognized employee organization to present at the hearing. If the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit meets or exceeds 20% of the total number of authorized full-time positions, the bill would require the public agency, upon request of the recognized employee organization, to include specified information during the public hearing. By imposing new duties on local public agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also include related legislative findings. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions for costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act, but would recognize that a local agency or school district may pursue any available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs. Digest Key Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes Bill Text 4/30/25, 9:49 AM California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2561/id/3022144/California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered.html 1/3259 CC 05-06-2025 259 of 554 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) Job vacancies in local government are a widespread and significant problem for the public sector affecting occupations across wage levels and educational requirements. (b) High job vacancies impact public service delivery and the workers who are forced to handle heavier workloads, with understaffing leading to burnout and increased turnover that further exacerbate staffing challenges. (c) There is a statewide interest in ensuring that public agency operations are appropriately staffed and that high vacancy rates do not undermine public employee labor relations. SEC. 2. Section 3502.3 is added to the Government Code, to read: 3502.3. (a) (1) A public agency shall present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts during a public hearing before the governing board at least once per fiscal year. (2) If the governing board will be adopting an annual or multiyear budget during the fiscal year, the presentation shall be made prior to the adoption of the final budget. (3) During the hearing, the public agency shall identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may lead to obstacles in the hiring process. (b) The recognized employee organization for a bargaining unit shall be entitled to make a presentation at the public hearing at which the public agency presents the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts for positions within that bargaining unit. (c) If the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit meets or exceeds 20 percent of the total number of authorized full-time positions, the public agency shall, upon request of the recognized employee organization, include all of the following information during the public hearing: (1) The total number of job vacancies within the bargaining unit. (2) The total number of applicants for vacant positions within the bargaining unit. (3) The average number of days to complete the hiring process from when a position is posted. (4) Opportunities to improve compensation and other working conditions. (d) This section shall not prevent the governing board from holding additional public hearings about vacancies. (e) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. (f) For purposes of this section, “recognized employee organization” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 3501. 4/30/25, 9:49 AM California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2561/id/3022144/California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered.html 2/3260 CC 05-06-2025 260 of 554 SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of this act, which adds Section 3502.3 to the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings: It is in the public interest, and it furthers the purposes of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section (3) of Article I of the California Constitution, to ensure that information concerning public agency employment is available to the public. SEC. 4. No reimbursement shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code for costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act. It is recognized, however, that a local agency or school district may pursue any remedies to obtain reimbursement available to it under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) and any other law. 4/30/25, 9:49 AM California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2561/id/3022144/California-2023-AB2561-Chaptered.html 3/3261 CC 05-06-2025 261 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13905 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 12. Subject: Review future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers (Continued from April 15, 2025) 1.Review the future agenda items list and adopt the staff recommendations for items 1-14 and 16-17 2. Provide direction for item 15 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™262 CC 05-06-2025 262 of 554 1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Review of Future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers Recommended Action 1. Review the future agenda items list and adopt the staff recommendations for items 1-14 and 16-17 2. Provide direction for item 15 Reasons for Recommendation and Options As required per the Council’s adopted Procedures Manual, the City Manager provides a quarterly report to Council regarding the status of future agenda items. These are items that at least two Councilmembers have requested to be added to a future City Council agenda. Background On February 4, staff presented a list of 16 items for Council consideration. Council voted on the next steps for each item (described in Attachment A) and removed three items from the list. Since then, Council has added additional items to the future agenda items list for consideration. At the April 15 council meeting, Council provided direction via a unanimous vote to agendize item 18 (Finch Property) as soon as possible to consider the Finch property for potential purchase or other form of partnership with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). Council also voted to continue the TBD discussion to the next meeting. The updated TBD list is included as Attachment B with staff recommendations for items 1-14 and 16-17. Staff is seeking Council direction for item 15. A majority vote of the City Council can either agendize an item for discussion at a future date or remove an item from the list, as outlined in the Council Procedures Manual. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. 263 CC 05-06-2025 263 of 554 2 Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact. California Environmental Quality Act Not applicable. City Work Program Item/Description No/N/A Council Goal N/A _____________________________________ Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Senior Management Analyst Reviewed by: Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion B – Future Agenda Items List as of May 2025 C – Supplemental Report from April 15, 2025 City Council Meeting 264 CC 05-06-2025 264 of 554 Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Motion 1 Draft a policy regarding disclosure to the public of remodeling costs of buildings the Council is considering purchase of in open session. This policy would ensure that the public will not be surprised to find a negotiated arrangement to provide a Council-designated property negotiator more than the delegation of authority to negotiate the cost of the property (meaning Council shall not negotiate remodeling costs or process of determining remodeling amounts in closed session). Requestor: Moore Seconder: Chao 6/28/24 added by email This item was postponed in October. Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list 2 Report to Council a cost comparison of leasing vs. buying office property in Cupertino for a lease length of time of 2 years (in the event that plans for remodel and retrofit are drawn up and executed, staff leases an unremodeled building for 2 years and returns) or 7 years (in the event that a purchased office building requires $5M in remodel costs which takes one year to complete, and City Hall relocates to it for 6 years, sells the building in a flat office market and returns). Both of these scenarios would assume City Hall is remodeled at $27M. Requestor: Moore Seconder: Chao 6/28/24 added by email This item was postponed in October. Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list 3 Action Item/Study Session with information/proposal on the need for an interim city hall for 6-7 years, rather than Requestor: Chao 7/1/24 added by email This item was postponed in October. Council can either: An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to 265 CC 05-06-2025 265 of 554 Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Motion one year during the renovation/construction of the current city hall and any update on the private-public partnership that led to such proposal. Seconder: Moore 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list 4 Discuss and give direction on the "wisdom of purchase" versus leasing of any property as an interim city hall, based on prior council motions for city hall renovation/rebuild, to include the duration of the use of the interim city hall, an estimate of leasing/purchasing prices and estimated remodeling/earthquake retrofit costs in general terms as permitted in an open session before any offer is made on any property. The agenda item on June 18 Council meeting to authorize the city managers as a negotiator, only listed the property address, but not the "wisdom of the purchase". Requestor: Chao Seconder: Moore 7/9/24 added by email This item was postponed in October. Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list 5 Consider a policy to provide access to documents made available for closed sessions ahead of time with proper security measures. Accordingly, Councilmembers can read the materials before and after a closed session. Requestor: Chao Seconder: Moore At 7/16/24 Council meeting Staff recommends removing this item. Materials are confidential and should be based on the sensitivity of the information and the nature of the agenda item. Keep on list until added to Council Procedures Manual 266 CC 05-06-2025 266 of 554 Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Motion 6 Consider regulations on sound amplification devices in parks Requestor: Moore Seconder: Chao Added by email on 9/12/24 and at the 9/17/24 Council meeting. Staff recommends removing this item. Sound amplification is currently allowed in parks with a valid City permit as specified in CMC 13.04.120 Use of Park Property Section I. A friendly amendment was approved to hold a study session on this item. Add this item to an agenda: Amend CMC Section 13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following: … 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means “the 267 CC 05-06-2025 267 of 554 Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Motion volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code) 7 Review the City Work Program Process Requestor: Chao Seconder: Moore At 12/3/24 Council meeting Staff recommends removing this item. This discussion was held at 12/17/24 City Council meeting. Accept staff recommendation to remove item 8 Review the Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Requestor: Chao Seconder: Moore At 12/3/24 Council meeting Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list Keep on list to agendize this discussion 9 Review the current list of future agenda items requested by Councilmembers (“TBD List”) Requestor: Chao Seconder: Moore At 12/3/24 Council meeting Staff recommends removing this item. This item is agendized for the 1/22/25 City Council meeting. Accept staff recommendation to remove item 10 Consider changing regular City Council meetings to Wednesdays Unanimous At 12/17/24 Council meeting Staff recommends removing this item and keeping the current Council schedule adopted on 12/17/24. This will reduce complications and Accept staff recommendation to remove item 268 CC 05-06-2025 268 of 554 Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Motion scheduling conflicts with a variety of other organizations and City Commissions. 11 Review the architectural standards for 5G towers Requestor: Wang Seconder: Chao At 12/17/24 Council Meeting Staff recommends removing this item. The 5G ordinance is being considered as part of the FY 25-27 City Work Program discussion. Keep on TBD until it is added to the FY 2025-27 City Work Program. 12 Reactivate the Legislative Review Committee Requestor: Chao At 12/17/24 Council meeting Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list 3. Consider this as part of the FY 25-27 City Work Program discussion. Add as an action item 13 Reactivate the Economic Development Committee Requestor: Chao At 12/17/24 Council Meeting Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list 3. Consider this as part of the FY 25-27 City Work Program discussion. Add as an action item 14 Restore the previous responsibilities of the Audit Committee Requestor: Chao At 12/17/24 Council Meeting Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list Add as an action item 269 CC 05-06-2025 269 of 554 Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Motion 3. Consider this as part of the FY 25-27 City Work Program discussion. 15 For transportation projects and added lane reductions to fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission Requestor: Wang Seconder: Chao At 12/17/24 Council Meeting Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list 3. Consider this as part of the FY 25-27 City Work Program discussion. An action item added to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission). 16 Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates Chao 1/15/25 added by email Council can either: 1. Agendize this discussion 2. Remove from list A friendly amendment was approved to agendize this item as appropriate. 270 CC 05-06-2025 270 of 554 Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Date Council Approved 1 An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list. Requestor: Chao Seconder: Moore 7/9/24 added by email With the City Hall item being added to the final list for the FY 25-27 City Work Program, staff recommends removing this item from this list. 2/4/25 2 Consider a policy to provide access to documents made available for closed sessions ahead of time with proper security measures. Accordingly, Councilmembers can read the materials before and after a closed session. Requestor: Chao Seconder: Moore At 7/16/24 Council meeting This may be added as part of the Council Procedure Manual revisions. Staff recommends removing this item from this list. 3 Review the Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Requestor: Chao Seconder: Moore At 12/3/24 Council meeting Staff recommends removing this item as this is currently underway. 4 Review the architectural standards for 5G towers Requestor: Wang Seconder: Chao At 12/17/24 Council Meeting Staff recommends removing this item as this item was added to the final list for the FY 25-27 City Work Program. 5 Study session to discuss the policy for the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) approval process Requestor: Chao At 3/18/25 Council Meeting Staff recommends removing this item as Council discussed the development of the FY 25- 26 CIP and five-year plan at the April 2 Council meeting. 271 CC 05-06-2025 271 of 554 Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Date Council Approved 6 Reactivate the Legislative Review Committee Requestor: Chao At 12/17/24 Council meeting Staff recommends removing this item as Council created a legislative subcommittee at the March 18 City Council meeting. 2/4/2025 approved by council to agendize 7 Reactivate the Economic Development Committee (EDC) Requestor: Chao At 12/17/24 Council Meeting Staff recommends removing this item as Council voted to reactivate the EDC and is holding the second reading on April 15. 2/4/2025 approved by council to agendize 8 Introduce and conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 25- ____ of Municipal Code Amendments regarding vehicle parking restrictions. “I would like to propose a minor modification to the Muni Code for parking to address the issue that a vehicle could occupy the same section of a public street 24x7 as long as they move the vehicle by 6 inches. This is against the original intent of the Muni Code 11.24.130. I have included relevant Muni Code sections from Mountain View and Sunnyvale, in addition to Cupertino's Muni Code below. We could consider the two options: -Mountain View's version: Any vehicle must be moved at least one thousand (1000) feet (approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its current location and may not return to the same parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after its departure. Requestor: Chao 3/20/25 added by email This item is being discussed on May 6, 2025. 272 CC 05-06-2025 272 of 554 Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Date Council Approved -Sunnyvale's version: Pushing or moving a vehicle a short distance will not be considered compliance with this section. Additionally, successive acts of parking shall be presumed to be a single act of parking within the meaning of this section when the vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding the parking limitations prescribed by this section. I hope that such minor modification could be considered in a timely manner. 9 Study session on multi-family apartments converting to student housing (MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded to add the following item to a future agenda: A study session on the multifamily apartment conversion to student housing issue, and whether the City can do it; include existing proposed bills on student housing and comparisons to municipal codes on student housing in other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Berkeley; and consider a potential ordinance for student housing, so the City has control of its use and impact. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.) Requestor: All At 4/2/25 Council Meeting Staff is working on agendizing this discussion at the earliest available meeting date. 4/2/2025 approved by council to agendize 10 An Informational Memorandum on the contracts signed by the City in the past year. Ideally, include the purpose, the department and the contract duration and the dollar amount. If this request would need to be added to the info memo TBD list to get majority support. A monthly report on new contract signed or renewed would be quite helpful going forward too. Requestor: Chao 4/4/25 added by email This info memo will be published in May 2025. 273 CC 05-06-2025 273 of 554 Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Date Council Approved 11 Restore the previous responsibilities of the Audit Committee (Motion: An action item to restore the Audit Committee’s previous responsibilities. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Fruen and Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None). Requestor: Chao At 12/17/24 Council Meeting On 2/4/25 Council moved to agendize this item as soon as appropriate. 2/4/25 approved by council to agendize 12 For transportation projects and added lane reductions to fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission (Motion: An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Fruen and Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None). Requestor: Wang Seconder: Chao At 12/17/24 Council Meeting On 2/4/25 Council moved to agendize this item as soon as appropriate. 2/4/25 approved by council to agendize 13 A study session to consider regulations on sound amplification devices in parks (Motion: A friendly amendment was approved to hold a study session on this item. Add this item to an agenda: Amend CMC Section 13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall do any of the following: … 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following: … 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means Requestor: Moore Seconder: Chao At 9/17/24 Council meeting On 2/4/25 Council moved to agendize this study session as soon as appropriate. 2/4/25 approved by council to agendize 274 CC 05-06-2025 274 of 554 Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Date Council Approved “the volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code) 14 Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates (Motion: A friendly amendment was approved to agendize this item as appropriate.) Requestor: Chao 1/15/25 added by email. Email attached below. On 2/4/25 Council moved to agendize this item as soon as appropriate. 2/4/25 approved by council to agendize 15 Receive update and review the Active Transportation Plan Requestor: Wang, Seconder: Chao 4/17/25 added by email Council can either: 1.Agendize this discussion 2.Remove from this list 16 Consider Finch Property for potential purchase or other partnership with CUSD. This includes: •Information about the Finch Property itself •Any communication about the Finch Property from CUSD •The info memo on the current balance and estimated future parkland impact fee. Requestor: Chao 3/20/25 added by email On 4/15/25 Council moved to agendize this item as soon as possible to consider the Finch property for potential purchase or other form of partnership with CUSD. 4/15/25 approved by council to agendize 17 Get some clarity on the total expenses for the sister and friendship cities. These are valuable programs for the city, but we should be cognizant of the expenses so far and going forward (in the budget). “Will someone please provide a cost update prior to the Sister/Friendship city Policy Agenda item, to the following Requestor: Moore, Seconder: Chao 4/14/25 added by email An info memo will be published on this topic. 275 CC 05-06-2025 275 of 554 Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Date Council Approved table (below) provided in October 10, 2023 Supplemental Materials to the October 10, 2023 agenda item, to include: •Friendship City costs (gifts, staff time?), the table only has Sister Cities. •Provide Actual Staff costs to manage the program so that we can compare them with the budgeted amount. If possible, by Sister or Friendship city. o Staff costs of meeting with the delegations which includes a presentation by the City Manager, slide show, City Staff support, City photographer, City Staff guided tour of the library, Community Hall, and City Hall. o Staff attendance at various Sister City and Friendship City events (Bell ringing for Peace, for example) o Staff time making proclamations, speeches for Mayor etc. o Staff free Advertising costs such as promotional videos, this requires staff time to write a script, video edit, post the videos etc. Here are examples: o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zyfVVrQhs o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwlHxT5-f9I •Provide travel costs whether covered by the city or not (we should know if individuals are traveling to cities paid for by a Friendship or Sister City) and if it was for staff or a councilmember. The staff or councilmember would have to report the costs covered by the Sister or 276 CC 05-06-2025 276 of 554 Attachment B – May 2025 Future Agenda Item List # Requested Item Requestor/ Seconder Date Requested Recommendation Date Council Approved Friendship City and the city would have a record of what costs were covered. •How many of the 18 free facility uses were used and for how many hours? The budgeted amount should be the max. cost? 18 x 4 sister cities x Number of Hours x Cost per hour? I mention this because the policy is very vague surrounding the uses. •Any costs I may be missing? Please repeat the process for FY 23-24 and FY 24-25 so far. We have had no update since 2023. Please indicate which Sister/Friendship City the costs are for with a total for each.” 277 CC 05-06-2025 277 of 554 1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL 1 Meeting: April 15, 2025 Agenda Item #14 Subject Future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers (“TBD List”). Recommended Action 1. Review the TBD list and adopt the staff recommendations for items 1-13 2. Provide direction for items 14-18. Background: Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics. Q1: This item "Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates" seems to be proposed by me through email on 1/15/2025. I cannot find the email from me and do not remember the context. Could you please include the original emails for this item so that the other Councilmembers have the full context on an agenda item request, rather than just a few words? (Chao) Staff response: Attachment B – April 2025 Future Agenda Item List has been updated to include the email from 1/15/25 as requested. Q2: Please include the original approved motions from the Minutes from the Feb. 4, 2025 meeting since the Attachment A does not seem to reflect the motions approved accurately. Below is what I copied from the Minutes, which I think accurately reflected what the Council approved on Feb. 4. Please update Attachment A based on the motions adopted by the Council. Source: The Minutes of the Feb. 4 Council meeting https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1245843&GUID=81AE1770 -A309- 483C-A668-EAED7524F8B2 SECOND AMENDED MOTION: Agendize the following items as soon as appropriate: 1. An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the 278 CC 05-06-2025 278 of 554 2 Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list (TBD List Items 1-4 combined) 2. An action item to re-enact the Economic Development Committee and the Legislative Action Committee with the original Muni Code, before they were removed in early 2023. 3. An action item to restore the Audit Committee responsibilities to restore previous responsibility. 4. An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission). 5. A budget balancing study session to consider potential budget reduction, such as staffing levels, unneeded contracts and to reconsider some service level reductions and permit fee increase for residents. a. Such as reducing fees for residents and increasing fees for non-residents 6. A study session on Environment Review Committee. The second amended motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Fruen and Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None AMENDED MOTION: Chao moved and Wang seconded to approve the following: • TBD list Item 6 - consider regulations on sound amplification devices in parks - add this item to an agenda: Amend CMC Section 13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means “the volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code) • TBD list Item 11 - review the architecture standards for 5G towers – keep on TBD until it is added to the FY 2025-27 City Work Program. • TBD list Item 5 - policy to provide access to documents made available for closed session - keep on TBD until the item is added to the Council Procedures Manual. • TBD list Item 16 - Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates – agendize this item as appropriate. • Accept the staff recommendation for TBD list Items 12 -15. The amended motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: Fruen. Abstain: None. Absent: None. (Chao) Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report. Q3: The Attachment B should be the April 2025 list of future agenda items. But some 279 CC 05-06-2025 279 of 554 3 items have been voted by the Council on Feb. 4 to agendize with modified language. Please add a column to Attachment B "Date Council Approved" to reflect the date the council voted to agendize this item. • For example, Item 15 in Attachment B for the audit committee should have "agendized by Council on 2/4/25" under the "Date Council Approved". Otherwise, it appears as if this is a new item the Council has not approved already to agendize. • For example, Item 14 in Attachment B for the sound amplification devices should be "agendized by Council on 2/4/25" under the "Date Council Approved". And the description of this item from the approved Feb. 4 motion should be reflected in the description. • You might wish to indicate whether an item was agendized as an action item or a study session or unspecified in the motion. (Chao) Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report. Q4: The description for the item "A study session to consider regulations on sound amplification devices in parks" in Attachment A (based on Feb. 4 approved motions) is not quite accuate. • The item was proposed by me through an email sent on 9/12/202, which was mentioned at the 9/17/2024 council meeting. I have forwarded the same email again for the record of this meeting to provide some context of this request. • But this item was also included in the second approved motion with more detailed description: "TBD list Item 6 - consider regulations on sound amplification devices in parks - add this item to an agenda: Amend CMC Section 13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following:… 1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means “the volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code) " (From the second approved motion in the Minutes of Feb. 4 Council Meeting) • Please make corrections: o Add the detailed description to Item 6 of Attachment A under the Motion column. Otherwise, it is not clear what that this item is about from the title alone. • Since it was proposed by me, I kind of remember what I had requested. But the other council members and the public would need more description than this 280 CC 05-06-2025 280 of 554 4 very short description. • In fact, I forwarded the request from a resident on 9/12/2024 to the City Clerk to request this to be added to the TBD list. The email is titled "Proposal to Amend Park Sound Amplification Policy". I have forwarded this request again for the record of this meeting. (Chao) Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report. Q5: The approved motion from Feb. 4 states "An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list (TBD List Items 1-4 combined)", which means that the Item 1-4 should be replaced by the action item as stated. Thus, Attachment A does not seem to follow the approved motion accurately. • Please correct Attachment A so that the Motion column for Items 1-4 state "An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list", to reflect the approved Feb. 4 motion. • Please correct Attachment B accordingly. Attachment B should only list "An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list" as one item instead. (Chao) Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report. Q6: The approved Feb. 4 motion include "An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission)." Please make corrections so that Attachment A reflects the Feb. 4 motions approved by the Council. • Please correct Attachment A so that the Motion column of Item 15 reflect the action item added by the Motion: "An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission)". • Please correct Attachment B accordingly. Item 16 in the Attachment B should have the description as stated in the Feb. 4 motion to accurately describe the actual item on the future agenda items list. Attachment B should also accurately reflect that the item has received majority vote on Feb. 4. (Chao) Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report. 281 CC 05-06-2025 281 of 554 5 Q7. Item 12 ("Study session on multi-family apartments converting to student housing") in the Attachment B shows "At 4/2/25 Council Meeting" under the "Date Requested" column. I found the Minutes of the April 2 Council Meeting has more details: MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded to add the following item to a future agenda: A study session on the multifamily apartment conversion to student housing issue, and whether the City can do it; include existing proposed bills on student housing and comparisons to municipal codes on student housing in other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Berkeley; and consider a potential ordinance for student housing, so the City has control of its use and impact. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. The Attachment B should include the language from the motion to better represent the request. • To distinguish this item from a newly proposed the item without a vote of the council majority yet, under the "Date Council Approved" column (if added), this item should show "4/2/2025 approved by council to agendize", for example. Staff response: Attachments A and B have been updated and are included in this supplemental report. Q8: For Item 11 in the Attachment B for so-called "RV parking". My original request, which I submitted for the record of this meeting, was not for "RV parking". The original request was applicable to all vehicles, but with the limited scope for the 72 -hour parking rule. At the suggestion of staff, the scope of this item was expanded to include oversized vehicles near residential areas. And then, in that case, I did request to also consider oversized vehicles in customer-facing retail area. Thus, the scope of the study ses sion "to be heard at the May 6 Council meeting" has evolved from the original agenda request. It might be a good idea to add under the Recommendation column the scope of the May 6 study session for accuracy and transparency. Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report: A. Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion B. Future Agenda Items List as of April 2025 Attachments Provided with this Supplemental 1: A. Updated Attachment A - Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion B. Updated Attachment B - Future Agenda Items List as of April 2025 C. Updated Staff Report 282 CC 05-06-2025 282 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13765 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 13. Subject: Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building 1. (Application No(s): M-2024- 003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California (Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048) That the City Council adopt the proposed draft resolutions (Attachment A & B) to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-027 approving the First Addendum to an EIR and approving the Development Permit Amendment (M-2024-003); and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-028 approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA- 2024-003). CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™283 CC 05-06-2025 283 of 554 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Modification to a previously approved Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development including, but not limited to, dwelling count and ground floor retail, Park Land Dedication Fees and minor changes to Building 1. (Application No(s): M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003; Applicant(s): Related California (Cascade Zak); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN #326-27-048) Recommended Action That the City Council adopt the proposed draft resolutions (Attachment A & B) to: 1. Adopt the First Addendum to an EIR and approve the Development Permit Amendment (M-2024-003); and 2. Approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003). Background General Plan Land Use Designation Commercial/Residential with a maximum residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre Special Planning Area Heart of the City Specific Plan (West Stevens Creek subarea) Zoning Designation P(CG, Res) (Planned Development zoning with General Commercial and Residential uses) Net/gross lot area 7.9 acres/8.1 acres1 Approved Project Current Proposal Units within Building 1 123 136 Total number of units within the Westport Development 259 272 Residential Density 32.78 du/acre 34.4 du/acre Density Bonus Requested 8.4% 12.8% Height of Building 1 79.5 feet 78.6 feet Memory Care Rooms 35 No change 284 CC 05-06-2025 284 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 2 Approved Project Current Proposal Building 1 Retail Stevens Creek Blvd frontage 60% 10% Rear of building 26% 5% Retail Square Footage 17,600 4,000 Building 1 Parking Residential 81 32 Residential Care 27 18 Retail 103 23 Total Building 1 211 73 Site and Location Description Prior to the commencement of Westport’s development, the project site was known as the Oaks Shopping Center, which was a regional, multi-tenant outdoor shopping facility built in the 1970s that included restaurants and a movie theater. The site is in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Special Area within the Oaks Gateway of the West Stevens Creek subarea. The approximately 8.1 gross-acre site is bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, Mary Avenue to the east and north, and Highway 85 to the west. The surrounding uses are the Glenbrook Apartments to the north, De Anza College to the south (across Stevens Creek Boulevard), and the Cupertino Senior Center to the east (See Figure 1). Previous Entitlements On August 18, 2020, the City Council approved permits to allow construction of a mixed- use development on the site that was occupied by the Oaks Shopping Center. The primary components of that project were:  Two residential/commercial buildings: Building 2 Building 1 Townhomes/Rowhome Figure 1 Approved Westport site plan. 285 CC 05-06-2025 285 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 3  Building 1 was a six-story building with 131 senior, licensed assisted living units, 27 memory care residences, and 17,600 square-feet of ground-floor retail/commercial space.  Building 2 was a six-story building with 48 BMR senior independent living units1 and 2,400 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial.  70 single-family residential townhouses and 18 single-family residential rowhouse condominiums.  A one-level, below-ground parking garage with 191 parking spaces.  44,945 square feet of Residential Common Open Space  2,915 square feet of Commercial Common Open Space  386 onsite and offsite trees, replacing the 73 protected development trees proposed to be either removed or relocated.  Height waivers of the 45 foot height limit in the General Plan to allow: o Building 1 to be 70’ 0” to the eave line, and 79’ 6” to the roof ridge. o Building 2 to be 65’ to the eave line, and 74’ 6” to the roof ridge.  Slope line setback waivers of the 1:1 slope line setback from the curb line in the General Plan to allow o a slope line setback of 1:1.70 for Building 1 and o a slope line setback of 1:1.48 for Building 2.  Incentive/concession allowing all BMR units to be consolidated in one of the two senior housing buildings (Building 2) rather than dispersed between the two senior housing buildings and townhouses/rowhouses. The approval also included a vesting tentative map (VTM) (TM-2018-03) subdividing the property into two separate parcels (one 4.7 acre and one 3.1-acre parcel). Subsequently, a revised VTM (TM-2021-002) subdividing the property into three parcels, with the BMR building (Building 2) on its own parcel, was approved by City Council on September 7, 2021. On December 21, 2021, the Cupertino City Counc il approved a Modification to a Development Permit (M-2021-003), an Architectural & Site Approval (ASA-2021-007), and Heart of the City Exception (EXC-2021-003) to allow the following modifications to Building 1 of the Westport Development project:  Limited the 8,000-square-foot ground floor dining facility to residents of Building 1 and their guests only, rather than being open to the public.2 1 Since early 2024, Building 2 has been occupied and functioning in its capacity as an age restricted BMR building. As of the date of this staff report, approximately 80 of the 88 townhomes/rowhouses have a certificate of occupancy. 2 The Department of Social Services prohibits dining areas for licensed Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly from being open to the public. 286 CC 05-06-2025 286 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 4  Adjusted the unit mix, adding more two-bedroom units while reducing studio units in Building 1, and adding eight memory care rooms (for a total of 35 memory care rooms), but decreasing the total residential unit count by that same number (131 to 123).  A density bonus parking alternative standard that reduced the underground parking garage to a single floor limited to the areas under Building 1, while utilizing parking lifts and valet service to maintain the original stall count.  Reduced massing on the top floor to accommodate a sixth-floor aqua therapy pool.  Allowed 40% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 75% of the rear of the building to be occupied by non-retail uses, with no change in retail square footage from the original permit. Current Development Permit Modification Request Cascade Zak, representing the applicant, Related, is now requesting a modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) and an Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA- 2024-003) to Building 1:  Utilize their remaining density bonus Incentive/Concession to reduce the amount of retail from 17,600 square feet to 4,000 square feet.  Request a density bonus to increase the senior assisted living dwelling count by 13 units, from 123 to 136, and to modify the unit mix. The number of memory care rooms remains unchanged at 35.  Utilize provisions of state law (Assembly Bill 2097) to remove the underground parking facility (a decrease of 146 parking stalls for the development).  Make minor adjustments to the proposed structure, including reducing the building height, moving sixth floor amenities to the ground floor, and decreasing the overall square footage of the proposed building from 199,800 square feet to 195,253 square feet.  Waive the application of the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee. The applicant is proposing to utilize the provisions of State Density Bonus law and the newly enacted Assembly Bill 2097 (AB2097) to achieve these changes. However, while the applicant is entitled to utilize provisions of the State Density Bonus law to reduce the retail footage if the applicant demonstrates that such reduction results in identifiable and actual cost savings, the provisions of AB2097 that prohibit cities from requiring minimum parking requirements do not apply to this project since the project was approved a nd entitled prior to the enactment of AB2097. Therefore, the applicant cannot apply AB2097 retroactively to an already entitled project. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at its April 22, 2025 meeting. After much deliberation regarding the loss of retail and the loss of parking, the Planning 287 CC 05-06-2025 287 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 5 Commission recommended (5-0) that City Council adopt the first amendment to the EIR and adopt resolutions (Attachments C&D) approving the application with added conditions of approval to the Modified Development Permit resolution as follows:  TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM REQUIRED The applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the assisted living employees prior to Building Permit issuance.  RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000). The City Council should consider the Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions. Proposed Project Modification Analysis: 1. Reduction in Retail The Heart of the City Specific Plan limits the area of uses that do not involve the direct retailing of goods or services to the public to no more than 25% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and no more than 50% of the rear of the building. On December 21, 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception allowing 40% of the building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 75% of the rear of the building to be occupied by non-retail uses. There was no change approved in 2021 to the total retail square footage in Building 1 (17,600 sq. ft.) from that approved through the original 2020 permit. 288 CC 05-06-2025 288 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 6 Approved Building 1 Ground Floor Proposed Building 1 Ground Floor Figure 2 Comparison between the approved and proposed retail portions of Building 1. Retail is filled in with red, resident amenities in orange, and Back-of- House/Support in blue. Proposed Modification In the submitted proposed modification, June 18, 2024, letter submitted by the applicant (Attachment E), states that since their application is a modification to the overall Westport Development project, the developer of Building 1 remains eligible for the second of two allowable State density bonus law incentives and concessions allowed for the 8.1 -acre Westport Development. Therefore, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1 3. As illustrated in Figure 3, the proposed retail locations are on the corner of Building 1 adjacent to Mary Avenue, as well as the development’s driveway entrance along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The other uses along Stevens Creek are active and administrative uses limited to resident access, including the front office and wellness center for the senior assisted living facility. Staff Analysis: The applicant suggests that the spaces currently entitled as a retail area in Building 1 occupy ground floor building space that could otherwise be used for mechanical systems 3 The Westport Development includes 29 units of a base density of 237 units that are designated very low income. State density bonus law allows the development two incentives/concessions. 289 CC 05-06-2025 289 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 7 and back-of-house spaces for the senior assisted living facility. The currently proposed locations for these uses are in more expensive-to-build basements or upper-level building locations. Under State Density Bonus law, a developer is entitled to such incentives and concessions if there are identifiable and actual cost savings.4 Further, should Building 1 be constructed, an agreement requires the users of Building 1 to pay for a portion of shared infrastructure with Building 2 as on-going site maintenance costs. This allows the operator of the BMR building (Building 2) better to finance the long- term operating costs of affordable units. As identified earlier in the staff report, the Planning Commission recommended a waiver of parkland in lieu of dedication fees (including those already paid) if the applicant were able to increase the amount of retail space in the development to a total of 8,000 square feet, without any additional parking provided. The City Council should consider the Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions. 2. Assisted Living Unit Count The Westport Development provides 12% of its base density as affordable to very low- income households, which entitles the development to a 38.75% density bonus, or a total count of 329 units for the entire development pursuant to State density bonus law. As proposed, the total number of units in the development would increase from 259 to 272 units due to the addition of 13 assisted living units in Building 1 (12.8% Density Bonus). This amounts to an increase from 123 assisted living units to 136 assisted living units in Building 1. The number of memory care rooms in Building 1 would remain unchanged at 35 units under the current proposal. Staff Analysis The original development approved in 2020, which included 48 BMR units and 219 market rate units (88 Townhome/Rowhomes, 131 Assisted Living units) was found consistent with the BMR Manual requiring that the BMR Units in Building 2 and Building 1:  Be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction.  Unit size should be generally representative of the unit sizes within the market - rate portion of residential projects.  Interior features and finishes in affordable units shall be durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. 4 Government Code Section 65915(d) strictly limits a city’s ability to deny an incentive or concession, requiring very specific findings supported with substantial evidence that the incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost savings or the incentive or concession would have a specific and adverse impact upon public health or safety, with the burden of proof upon the city. 290 CC 05-06-2025 290 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 8 The number of units proposed was within the limits of State Density Bonus Law, and the developer is mandated in accordance with the City’s BMR Manual to certain standards of “comparability” as mandated in the Manual’s section 2.3.4 (listed above). Table 1 (below) shows the proposed unit mix within BMR Building 2 and the market -rate Building 1. The City Council had found that the original 2020 and 2021 approvals met the BMR Manual’s standard of comparability. Table 1 demonstrates that the comparability of the unit mix between Buildings 1 & 2, as proposed, is even more consistent with the City’s requirements than the project approved in 2021. Table 1: Unit Comparability Between Buildings 1 & 2 Approved Building 1 (123 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Average Unit Size 530 s.f. 710 s.f. 1,110 s.f. Unit Count 12 75 36 Mix Percentage 10% 61% 29% Proposed Building 1 (136 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Average Unit Size 530 s.f. 710 s.f. 1,110 s.f. Unit Count 27 79 30 Mix Percentage 20% 58% 22% Building 2 (48 Units) Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Average Unit Size 518.6 s.f. 615.7 s.f. 843 s.f. Unit Count 9 28 11 Mix Percentage 19% 58% 23% Staff believes that the City Council should support the added units as they are within the allowed density of the development as approved, as well as continuing and improving the comparability between the units of Buildings 1 & 2. 3. Parking Reduction Due to the amount of affordable housing and location of the site, the project had been previously approved with a Density Bonus reduced parking standard. The below-grade parking garage level in Building 1 was included to address the parking needs for Build ing 1 users (residents, visitors, staff and retail uses) and 23 spaces for Building 2 residents. Through the current modification, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the underground parking and provide all necessary parking at the surface level. However, the applicant will continue meeting existing obligations to provide parking for the other portions of Westport Development (Building 2 residents and the town homes) and will adjust the parking provided for the users of Building 1 to be more reflective of the parking required to serve their needs, as further described below. 291 CC 05-06-2025 291 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 9 Staff Analysis Parking for Building 2 users and Townhomes The Westport Development utilizes the provisions of State density bonus law to provide 0.5 space per bedroom and the City may not impose a different, higher parking requirement for the development. Under State density bonus law, the project needed to provide a total of 30 spaces for Building 2. Seven of these spaces were provided at the surface level on the parcel on which Building 2 is located, while the remaining 23 spaces were to be provided in the underground parking garage. The applicant is now proposing to provide these 23 spaces, previously located below grade under Building 1, at-grade on the parcel that Building 1 will be located on. In addition, the applicant will continue to provide seven surface parking spaces for retail use in Building 2 on the Building 1 parcel. The existing townhomes each have two car garages, with an additional 21 surface spaces available for guests on the parcel on which the townhomes are located. The applicant is proposing to continue to provide six parking spaces as guest parking for the townhome portion of the development at surface level on the Building 1 parcel. As a condition of approval, the applicant must mark all the spaces with signage to identify the intended parking space user prior to issuance of final occupancy. Parking for Building 1 users Changes to parking provided for Building 1 users include eliminating all parking spaces for the assisted living or memory care residents, providing 3 surface parking spaces for residents, 10 surface spaces for employees, 5 spaces for guests and 16 surface parking spaces for the reduced retail space, as indicated in Table 2 below. The applicant intended to rely upon the provisions of AB2097 to eliminate the underground parking but provide as much parking as they believe will be needed to serve Building 1 users and that the City may not impose any minimum parking requirements on their project. While the project site, due to its location, is eligible for AB2097’s parking provisions, the Westport p roject itself was approved prior to enactment of these provisions, and thus AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to this previously entitled project. Table 2: Comparison of Approved and Proposed Parking Previously Approved Proposed Residential (Building 1)5 80 (below grade) 8 Residential (Building 2)6 26 (below grade) 26 Residential (Townhomes) 6 (surface) 6 Bldg. 1 Facility Employees 28 (below grade) 10 5 The Westport Development was approved with a parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom in conformance with CA state density bonus law. Required parking for Building 1 residents would be 83. 6 See footnote 4. Required parking for Building 2 residents would be 30 spaces, seven spaces on the lot Building 2 is on, and the remaining on the lot that Building 1 is on. 292 CC 05-06-2025 292 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 10 Retail (Building 1) 71 (10 below grade, 61 surface) 16 Retail (Building 2) 7 (surface) 7 Total Building 1 218 (144 below grade and 74 surface) 73 (all surface) However, since the property is in the Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses (P (CG/Res)) zoning district 7, staff prepared a parking analysis for the Building 1 users as seen in Table 3 below, based on the following information provided by the applicant (Attachment I):  The median age of the tenants in the Senior assisted living units is anticipated to be approximately 84, based on the applicant/operator’s experience at similar facilities. Therefore, a very small percentage (8%) of the tenants will drive or own a vehicle. According to the applicant many residents dispose of, or donate, their vehicles prior to downsizing into one of their facilities, preferring to use the concierge vehicles operated by the facility.  Almost 75% of the employees of their other facilities are incentivized to use alternative means of transportation or park elsewhere (here, De Anza College facilities are located close by, and the operator is in talks with them regarding parking arrangements).  Guests are usually only at the facility for a maximum of 90 minutes per visit and can use public parking or park at De Anza College, if necessary.  Retail reduced to 4,000 square feet, significantly reducing parking demand based on the City’s retail parking standard of 1 space per 250 square feet. Table 3: Anticipated Parking Demand vs. Proposed Supply For Building 1 Previously Approved Proposed Expected Gap Residents 80 3 14 11 Employees (40 max per shift) 28 10 13 3 Guests (included in resident count) 5 10 5 Retail 71 16 16 0 Total 179 34 53 19 Based on the parking analysis, there appears to be a gap of approximately 19 spaces between the reasonably expected parking demand and the currently proposed parking space. Discussions with the applicant have indicated that they are voluntarily open to 7 CMC 19.80: Planned Development Zones is intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the City that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses and to provide for greater flexibility of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community design objectives. 293 CC 05-06-2025 293 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 11 adding surface parking spaces, where possible, to allow the parking supply to get closer to the expected parking demand. Upon an analysis of the site, it appears that there is room to add additional surface parking spaces within the site. However, the specifi c number of additional spaces that could be added has yet to be determined. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant is required to update the site plan to add a minimum of 20 onsite parking spaces, prior to issuance of building permits. In the alternative, the applicant has suggested that they could eliminate the 4,000 square feet of retail space being provided in Building 1, by modifying their remaining Density Bonus Incentive/Concession request, which would allow the use of 16 spaces, current ly earmarked for retail uses, for the residential portion of Building 1. Staff recommends that the parking count as conditioned with the project, consistent with similarly programmed assisted living communities in the area, will provide enough parking on-site. If the City Council disagrees with the above analysis, it could either recommend a different parking count that the developer must provide based on a different justification or deny the modification to the proposed parking arrangement on the basis that AB2097 does not apply to this project. 4. Architectural & Site Approval As described previously, the developer proposes modifying Building 1 as follows:  Increasing the footprint of the curved (sickle) portion of the building along Mary Avenue by 8 feet.  Relocating the memory care terrace to the interior of the project to overlook the central green.  Reducing ground floor height from 20 feet to 18 feet, with incremental height increases to the upper floors. The overall building height would be reduced to 78.6 feet due to this change.  Moving the therapy pool terrace and wellness gym to the ground floor from the sixth floor. This reduces mass along Stevens Creek Boulevard on the sixth floor. Staff Analysis None of the changes listed above, have any effect on the programming of the site , except as previously described in the discussions related to the reduction of retail use and elimination of underground parking. The overall architectural theme of the project is not proposed to be modified with this application and the project proposes to continue to be very similar to the architectural style (Mediterranean) that was previously approved. Therefore, Staff feels that City Council should support the modifications as proposed. 294 CC 05-06-2025 294 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 12 5. Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee At the revised 136-unit count, Building 1 would be required to pay approximately $4,080,000 ($30,000 per senior citizen housing development unit) as Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fees. The applicant has identified the following as reasons for the City waiving the fee:  “New pedestrian walkways connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue through the project. The construction of the walkways is not strictly required by the City’s Zoning Code; however, they could improve pedestrian circulation in the area, including Creation of a connection between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino Memorial Park.  Residents of the senior housing units in Building 1 cannot reasonably be anticipated to generate a material demand on City park lands and instead are more reasonably anticipated to use the open space amenities included in Building 1 and its publicly accessible, privately maintained Central Green.  Strategy HE-2.3.9 of the Housing Element requires the City to explore revising its Park Land Dedication Fee, including a specific reference to allowing credits for privately owned and maintained public open spaces and other pedestrian connections and trails.” Staff analysis In accordance with the Municipal Code (CMC 13.08.100), park land shall be dedicated to the City or the fee in lieu thereof shall be paid, as determined by the City, at the time of building permit issuance or recordation of a final subdivision map, whichever occurs earliest. The City has consistently determined that the open space provided on site does not conform to the private open space (for which credit may be provided) nor the park land dedication requirement consistent with the requirements of CMC Chapter 13.08.050 (F). Therefore, the determination has been that the project must pay a Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fee subject to CMC Chapter 13.08.060 Fees in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. To date, the developer has already paid $3.69MM for 123 units8. With the change to the programming, that is, providing 13 more assisted living units, the applicant would owe park land in lieu of dedication fees for these additional units in the approximate amount of $300,000. The walkway referenced by the applicant as the justification for requesting a fee waiver is an existing vehicular path between Building 1 and the remainder of the Westport development, which has long been a part of the site design. It is not a new design feature, 8 $3.93M in park fees on 12/21/21 (131 units x $30,000). However, when the project scope was modified to reduce units from 131 to 123, the City issued the developer a refund of $240,000 (8 units x $30,000). 295 CC 05-06-2025 295 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 13 nor does it have separated/designated bike lanes or public access easements. As a result, the project should not receive credit for any connection afforded by this primarily vehicular connection. Additionally, since the project will be occupied by seniors, the park land dedication in lieu of fee is already discounted to allow for the estimated reduction in use of public open spaces by seniors as allowed by Chapter 13.08. Further, although the Housing Element Strategy HE-2.3.9 may require the City to explore reduction in development fees, a policy to implement this strategy is not expected to be adopted until sometime in mid-2026. Accordingly, staff recommend that the City require the applicant to pay the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu of Fee for the additional 13 units and does not recommend a refund/waiver of the fees that have already been paid. However, the City could waive the fee if it wishes to assist this developer in the development of this market-rate project. Approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for incentivizing adding an additional 4,000 square feet of retail (for a total of up to 8,000 square feet of retail) would require the City to refund $3.69MM in fees already paid and agree that applicants need not pay the additional unpaid fees associated with the additional 13 units (approximately $300,000). Staff recommends that the City Council should consider the Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions. Other Department/Agency Review The City’s Building Division, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, Sheriff’s Department, Cupertino Sanitary District and the Santa Clara County Fire Department have reviewed and conditioned the project. Reasons for Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the project modifications, with the conditions of the approval proposed, because the changes to the project will not create adverse traffic, noise, or safety impacts to the surrounding area and each finding for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapters 19.56, 19.156, and 19.168 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, may be made as reflected in the findings of the draft resolutions attached. The Planning Commission recommendation as recorded in the draft resolutions. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. 296 CC 05-06-2025 296 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 14 Fiscal Impact If City Council would agree to the added Planning Commission condition that incentivizes the addition of 4,000 square of retail, the City could lose up to approximately $4 million in Park in-lieu fees. California Environmental Quality Act An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. The Final EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures were adopted and made conditions of project approval. The City conducted a CEQA analysis of changes to the project to determine the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15164, an addendum to an EIR should be prepared where there are (1) no substantial changes to the project requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects of the project; (2) no substantial changes in circumstances requiring major revisions to the EIR because of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects of the project; and (3) no new, previously unknown or unknowable, information of substantial importance showing: (a) new or substantially more severe significant efforts than were discussed or shown in the EIR; (b) that previously infeasible mitigation measures/alternatives are now feasible and would substantially reduce significant efforts; or (c) that considerably different mitigation measures than analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce significant effects. The analysis determined that proposed changes to the project meet the criteria for an addendum. To this end, an addendum was prepared (see Attachment F), in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The addendum reviews each topic in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and concludes that neither the modifications to the project nor new circumstance or information will result in an environmental impact that is new or more severe than the impacts studied in the Initial Study and EIR. Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of 297 CC 05-06-2025 297 of 554 M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Westport Cupertino 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard May 6, 2025 Page 15 previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR. Therefore, Staff recommends that City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Floy Andrews, City Attorney Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A. Draft Resolution for M-2024-003 B. Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-003 C. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-05 D. Planning Commission Resolution 2025-06 E. Letter from J. Abrams Law to Cupertino City Staff dated June 18, 2024 F. Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 G. Project Plans H. Public Comments I. Applicant Parking Exhibit 298 CC 05-06-2025 298 of 554 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2024-003 Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak) Property Owner: Related California Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA -2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2025-06), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. 2025-05); and 299 CC 05-06-2025 299 of 554 WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for a Development Permit. WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased sign ificant environmental effects. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project. WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposed residential development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner consistent with any applicable Government Code requirements, the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and underlying zoning regulations of the Municipal Code, and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and incentive/concession, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses. Additionally, all mitigation measures through the EIR Addendum that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and will be made conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 300 CC 05-06-2025 300 of 554 2. Notwithstanding subsection 19.156.040B(1), the Director of Community Development may deny a housing development project proposed under this Section with a written finding based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. To analyze the modifications of the project, an addendum was prepared in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR. 3. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need. (Findings required by Government Code Section 65863(b)(2).) The remaining sites in the housing element inventory are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The proposed project does not reduce the density of the site below what was projected in the City’s 5th Cycle housing element; the housing element shows a site capacity of 200 units, whereas 272 units are proposed. However, the proposed project includes only 48 lower income units, whereas the site was projected to contain 200 lower income units. Nonetheless, with the update to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Priority Housing sites in the inventory are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need in that 1,2421 lower income units have been approved by the City at the remaining housing element sites (Vallco Shopping District, Marina Plaza, the 1 Consisting of the following lower income units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 1,201 units; Veranda affordable housing (Barry Swenson site), 18 units; Marina Plaza, 16 units; Hamptons, 7 units net. 301 CC 05-06-2025 301 of 554 Hamptons, and the Barry Swenson site), well in excess of the 563 units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The City has approved a total of 3,2092 units on these four sites, also well in excess of the City’s allocation of 1,064 units to meet its total share of the regional housing need. The applicant has requested a density bonus. Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.56.070, before approving an application that includes a request for density bonus, incentive, parking reduction and/or waiver, the decision-making body shall make the following findings, as applicable: a) A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any incentives, parking reductions or waivers requested. The application is for a density bonus project that provides for 20.5% of its base density as Below Market Rate Housing. Because 12% of the base units on-site will be available to Very Low Income seniors, the project is eligible for a 38.75 density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and up to two (2) incentives/concessions. b) A finding that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions based upon the documentation provided by the applicant and the findings of the peer reviewer, if incentive(s) or concession(s) are requested (other than mixed use development). Consolidation of BMR Units: On August 19, 2020, the City Council approved a concession to consolidate all BMR units in Building 2, rather than dispersing them throughout Building 1 and the Townhouse/Rowhouse portion. Reduction in Ground Floor Retail: In December 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception to allow a reduced frontage along Stevens Creek to have retail uses (17,600 square feet of retail at the ground floor.) Since the project is eligible for two state density bonus law incentives and concessions, due to the amount of affordable housing provided with the project, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to further reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1. The currently approved retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create a more efficient building design for the applicant. The applicant proposes to do this by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than the previously approved, more expensive- to-build basement or upper-level building locations. 2 Consisting of the following total units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 2,402 units; Veranda (Barry Swenson site), 19 units; Marina Plaza, 188 units; Hamptons, 600 net new units. 302 CC 05-06-2025 302 of 554 c) If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all requirements included Section 19.56.030C have been met. The density bonus is not based on the donation of land, so the finding is not applicable. d) If the density bonus is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (D) have been met. The density bonus is not based on the inclusion of a childcare facility, so the finding is not applicable. e) If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (E) have been met. The density bonus is not based on a condominium conversion, so the finding is not applicable. f) If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.40 (B) (2) have been met. While the project is a mixed-use development, the density bonus is not based on the mixed- used development as an incentive, so the finding is not applicable. g) If a waiver is requested, a finding that that the development standards for which the waivers are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted. Height and Slope Setback Waivers: On August 19, 2020, the City Council found that applying the height and slope setback limitations to Buildings 1 & 2 would physically preclude the project by: (a) decreasing the amount of proposed open space and landscaped areas below what is otherwise required by the City; (b) reducing the average size of senior units; (c) reducing commercial ceiling heights; (d) decreasing above-ground parking and increasing underground parking. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would not increase the previously approved Height and Slope Setback waivers since the height of the proposed building is lower and therefore, the waiver is reduced. h) If a reduction in off-street parking standards for an eligible housing development is requested, a finding that all the applicable requirements in Section 19.56.040.C have been met. (The project is eligible to provide 0.5 space per bedroom, which requires at least 11% very low income or 20% low income units; within one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop; and unobstructed Access to the Major Transit Stop.) The applicant is no longer requesting a reduction in off- street parking standards pursuant to State Density Bonus law. 303 CC 05-06-2025 303 of 554 4. Since the applicable findings required above can be made, the decision-making body may deny an application for a waiver only if one of the following written findings as applicable to each type of application, supported by substantial evidence: a) That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or There are no affected Historic Resources in the vicinity. b) That the incentive, concession or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the residential project unaffordable to low- and moderate- income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential project was deemed complete; or As evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the First Addendum to the EIR, there are no significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential Project was deemed complete. c) That the incentive, concession or waiver is contrary to state or federal law. The requested waivers are not contrary to state or federal law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter and the Addendum, subject to the conditions which a re enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 7 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby: 1. Determines that the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and 2. Adopts the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project; and 3. Approves the application for a Modification to the Development Permit, Application No. M-2024-003; and 304 CC 05-06-2025 304 of 554 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. M-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 6, 2025 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 dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT AND PRIOR APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval. The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TR-2018-22, TM- 2018- 03, TM-2021-002, DP-2018-05, U-2019-03, EXC-2019-03, EA-2018-04, EXC- 2021-003, ASA-2021-007, and M-2021-003 shall be applicable to this approval unless in conflict with the conditions of approval of this resolution. 4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION Due to the reduction in retail commercial square footage in the development, 13,600 square feet of commercial allocation is returned to the available commercial allocation city-wide. 5. PARKING MODIFICATION The applicant will work with Staff to supply a further 20 parking spaces dispersed within the Building 1 parcel to accommodate the employees, guests, and residents of the assisted living facility (including memory care). 6. PARKING SPACE SIGNAGE All spaces within the development shall be marked to identify: 305 CC 05-06-2025 305 of 554 a. Parking for retail use restricted to retail use during the hours of operation of the business b. Parking for Residential Building 2 for exclusive use c. Parking for Townhomes for exclusive use d. Parking for Residential Building 1 for exclusive use for employees, residents and guests 7. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM REQUIRED The applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the assisted living employees prior to Building Permit issuance. 8. RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000). 9. INDEMNIFICATION As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against o ne or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The 306 CC 05-06-2025 306 of 554 applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement. The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project. The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages. 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 ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11. PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE Prior to building permit issuance, the project is subject to payment of park fees in- lieu of park land dedication under the City’s Park Land Dedication Fee (Chapter 13.08 and Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for the 13 new dwelling units. The current fee is $30,000 per unit and may be subject to modifications per the City’s annual property assessment and latest fee schedule adjustment. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 307 CC 05-06-2025 307 of 554 12. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further requirements. 13. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) 14. STANDPIPES REQUIRED Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. CFC Sec. 905 15. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 6500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C. See approved hydrant spotting plan pc#20-4568 16. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such 308 CC 05-06-2025 308 of 554 requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water -based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 17. REQUIRED FIRE DEPT. ACCESS Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted and amended by CUPMC. 18. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. 19. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. cul-de-sac. CFC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by CUPMC. 20. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating 309 CC 05-06-2025 309 of 554 fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends. 21. TIMING OF INSTALLATION When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 CFC Sec. 501.4 22. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72. 23. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33 24. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other 310 CC 05-06-2025 310 of 554 sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1 25. FIRE LANES REQUIRED The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required circulating access roadways and 60 feet where aerial access is required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of May 2025, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino Date ATTEST: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk Date 311 CC 05-06-2025 311 of 554 Resolution No. Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2024-003 Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak) Property Owner: Related California Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20- 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a 5-0 vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA -2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2025-06), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. 2025-05); and WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision -making body for this Resolution; and 312 CC 05-06-2025 312 of 554 Resolution No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for a Development Permit. WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approv al of the proposed project. WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, waivers, and incentive/concession the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and incorporated into the project in order to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. The modifications do not influence the programming of the site and are all within the provisions of state law. As a result, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings. The project is within the approved Building 1 proposal as approved by City Council on December 21, 2021. This maintains the mix of housing types that include two 313 CC 05-06-2025 313 of 554 Resolution No. Page 3 multistory high-density structures, as well as lower density townhome/rowhouse condominiums. The site is bordered by high density residential to the north and De Anza College to the South, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The development is designed to concentrate the taller structures on the northwest corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection while the shorter townhome/rowhouse structures are placed closer to the lower scale apartment and townhomes developments along Mary Avenue. This design provides a gradual transition between buildings of different height and bulk. b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges a nd screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners. The design quality of the development is consistent with the original approval of Westport development from August 2020, as further modified in December 2021. Both the high-density structures and townhome/rowhouse buildings are consistent with the design qualities of a Mediterranean-type development and the architectural style is consistent throughout the development. Further, the planting plan is consistent with the intent of the Heart of the City Specific Plan guidelines. Unsightly uses such as loading and trash pickup have been placed within the buildings away from view of neighboring uses. Utility installations have been designed to be screened by landscaping and or incorporated into the building design. The final lighting for the development will be reviewed as part of the review of the project construction 314 CC 05-06-2025 314 of 554 Resolution No. Page 4 documents to ensure that they meet safety requirements while avoiding spill-over light to adjacent properties. c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development. Signage approval is not included in this application. d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The project does not abut any existing residential development. The existing multi- family development located across Mary Avenue (Glenbrook Apartments) will be buffered from any impact because the project has been designed to maintain trees along the frontage and has been designed with adequate parking on-site. The buildings have been designed with setbacks from the curb line greater than the 9-feet required within the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 5 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby Approves the application for a Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2024-003 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 6, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, 315 CC 05-06-2025 315 of 554 Resolution No. Page 5 G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. M-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans (including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change. 6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report. The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.” 316 CC 05-06-2025 316 of 554 Resolution No. Page 6 7. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted. a. Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de - thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional. 8. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full Landscape Documentation Package, per sections 14.15.050 A, B, C, and D of the Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area 500 square feet or more or elect to submit a Prescriptive Compliance Application per sections 14.15.040 A, B, and C for projects with landscape area between 500 square feet and 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Application shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits, and additional requirements per sections 14.15.040 D, E, F, and G or 14.15.050 E, F, G, H, and I will be required to be revie wed and approved prior to final inspections. 9. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc ) and provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil.The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package. 10. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, and the pesticide control 317 CC 05-06-2025 317 of 554 Resolution No. Page 7 measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 11. SIGN PROGRAM A sign program is required for this project. The sign program shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits. 12. SITE IMPROVEMENTS All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any structures approved in conjunction with the project. 13. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 14. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 15. TREE PROTECTION As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:  For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.  No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.  No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City’s consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.  Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four - inch depth.  Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.  Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 318 CC 05-06-2025 318 of 554 Resolution No. Page 8  A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees, prior to final occupancy. The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 16. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies. 17. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 18. INDEMNIFICATION As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, c laim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The 319 CC 05-06-2025 319 of 554 Resolution No. Page 9 applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement. The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project. The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages. 19. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written n otice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of May, 2025, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino Date 320 CC 05-06-2025 320 of 554 Resolution No. Page 10 ATTEST: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk Date 321 CC 05-06-2025 321 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-05 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048) The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit ASA. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino the 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RECUSED: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Piu Ghosh /s/Santosh Rao Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission 322 CC 05-06-2025 322 of 554 EXHIBIT ASA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2024-003 Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak) Property Owner: Related California Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20 - 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. XXXX), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. XXX); and WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and WHEREAS, on May X, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and 323 CC 05-06-2025 323 of 554 Resolution No. Page 3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision -making body for this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for a Development Permit. WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously a pproved project. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project. WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, waivers, and incentive/concession the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. All mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and incorporated into the project in order to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. The modifications do not influence the programming of the site and are all within the provisions of state law. As a result, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: 324 CC 05-06-2025 324 of 554 Resolution No. Page 4 a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings. The project is within the approved Building 1 proposal as approved by City Council on December 21, 2021. This maintains the mix of housing types that include two multistory high-density structures, as well as lower density townhome/rowhouse condominiums. The site is bordered by high density residential to the north and De Anza College to the South, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The development is designed to concentrate the taller structures on the northwest corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection while the shorter townhome/rowhouse structures are placed closer to the lower scale apartment and townhomes developments along Mary Avenue. This design provides a gradual transition between buildings of different height and bulk. b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and with the fu ture character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to adjoining property owners. The design quality of the development is consistent with the original approval of Westport development from August 2020, as further modified in December 2021. Both the high-density structures and townhome/rowhouse buildings are consistent with the design qualities of a Mediterranean-type development and the architectural style is consistent throughout the development. Further, the planting plan is consistent with the intent of the Heart of the City Specific Plan guidelines. Unsightly uses such as loading and trash pickup have been placed within the buildings away from view of neighboring uses. Utility installations have been designed to be screened by landscaping and or incorporated into the building design. The final lighting for the development will be reviewed as part of the review of the project construction 325 CC 05-06-2025 325 of 554 Resolution No. Page 5 documents to ensure that they meet safety requirements while avoiding spill-over light to adjacent properties. c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development. Signage approval is not included in this application. d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The project does not abut any existing residential development. The existing multi- family development located across Mary Avenue (Glenbrook Apartments) will be buffered from any impact because the project has been designed to maintain trees along the frontage and has been designed with adequate parking on-site. The buildings have been designed with setbacks from the curb line greater than the 9-feet required within the General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 5 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby Approves the application for a Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2024-003 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April XX, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, 326 CC 05-06-2025 326 of 554 Resolution No. Page 6 G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. M-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans (including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change. 6. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report. The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. 327 CC 05-06-2025 327 of 554 Resolution No. Page 7 The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.” 7. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted. a. Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de - thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional. 8. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full Landscape Documentation Package, per sections 14.15.050 A, B, C, and D of the Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area 500 square feet or more or elect to submit a Prescriptive Compliance Application per sections 14.15.040 A, B, and C for projects with landscape area between 500 square feet and 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Application shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits, and additional requirements per sections 14.15.040 D, E, F, and G or 14.15.050 E, F, G, H, and I will be required to be reviewed and approved prior to final inspections. 9. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil. 328 CC 05-06-2025 328 of 554 Resolution No. Page 8 The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package. 10. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 11. SIGN PROGRAM A sign program is required for this project. The sign program shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of sign permits. 12. SITE IMPROVEMENTS All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any structures approved in conjunction with the project. 13. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 14. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 329 CC 05-06-2025 329 of 554 Resolution No. Page 9 15. TREE PROTECTION As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan:  For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work.  No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.  No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City’s consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.  Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four - inch depth.  Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers.  Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health.  A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees, prior to final occupancy. The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. 16. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies. 17. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 330 CC 05-06-2025 330 of 554 Resolution No. Page 10 18. INDEMNIFICATION As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement. The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project. The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages. 331 CC 05-06-2025 331 of 554 Resolution No. Page 11 19. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reserv ations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this XXth day of May, 2025, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino Date ATTEST: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk Date 332 CC 05-06-2025 332 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-06 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048) The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and approve the Modification to the Development Permit, in substantially similar form to the Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit M, with the following modifications:  Add the following Conditions of approval: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM REQUIRED The applicant shall submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for the assisted living employees prior to Building Permit issuance. RETAIL/PARKLAND IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION FEE Applicant to consider increasing the proposed retail square footage to 8,000 square feet, with no increased parking requirement for the additional 4,000 square feet retail component, in exchange for a refund of park in-lieu fees already paid in the approximate amount of $3.69MM, with no further payment of such fees required for the additional thirteen (13) assisted living units proposed (i.e. forego payment of approximately $300,000). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino the 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung, Lindskog NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 333 CC 05-06-2025 333 of 554 ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Piu Ghosh /s/Santosh Rao Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission 334 CC 05-06-2025 334 of 554 EXHIBIT M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MODIFICATION TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WESTPORT PROJECT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DWELLING COUNT AND GROUND FLOOR RETAIL, AND MINOR CHANGES TO BUILDING 1 LOCATED AT 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN #326-27-048) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2024-003 Applicant: Related California (Cascade Zak) Property Owner: Related California Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN: 326-27-048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20 - 105, adopting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Westport Development; and WHEREAS, environmental analysis and peer reviews were conducted by Placeworks, Inc. pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and an addendum to the EIR was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2025 the Planning Commission recommended on a X-X vote that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR (EA-2018-04) and approve the Modification to the Development Permit (M-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. XXXX), and approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-003) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented(Resolution No. XXX); and WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the Planning Commission held at least one public hearing in regard to this application, and 335 CC 05-06-2025 335 of 554 WHEREAS, on May X, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for a Development Permit. WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by Placeworks, Inc. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the EIR adopted on August 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the EIR due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. WHEREAS, the adopted EIR adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required prior to approval of the proposed project. WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposed residential development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner consistent with any applicable Government Code requirements, the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific plans, and underlying zoning regulations of the Municipal Code, and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With the conditions of approval and the approved density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and incentive/concession, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses. Additionally, all mitigation measures through the EIR Addendum that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City have been adopted and will be made conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. Notwithstanding subsection 19.156.040B(1), the Director of Community Development may deny a housing development project proposed under this Section with a written finding based upon a preponderance of evidence, that the proposed housing 336 CC 05-06-2025 336 of 554 development project would have a specific adverse impact, as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. An Initial Study was prepared and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse 2019070377) was certified for the project by City Council on August 18, 2020. To analyze the modifications of the project, an addendum was prepared in which they concluded that the proposed modified project is not a substantial change to the Final EIR because it is on the same project site as the approved project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Final EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Final EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the information provided in the Addendum, construction and operation of the modified project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Adopted EIR. 3. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need. (Findings required by Government Code Section 65863(b)(2).) The remaining sites in the housing element inventory are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The proposed project does not reduce the density of the site below what was projected in the City’s 5th Cycle housing element; the housing element shows a site capacity of 200 units, whereas 272 units are proposed. However, the proposed project includes only 48 lower income units, whereas the site was projected to contain 200 lower income units. Nonetheless, with the update to the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Priority Housing sites in the inventory are adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need in that 1,2421 lower income units have been approved by the City at the remaining housing element sites (Vallco Shopping District, Marina Plaza, the Hamptons, and the Barry Swenson site), well in excess of the 563 units that must be accommodated to meet the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. The City has approved a total of 3,2092 units on these four sites, also well in excess of the City’s allocation of 1,064 units to meet its total share of the regional housing need. 1 Consisting of the following lower income units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 1,201 units; Veranda affordable housing (Barry Swenson site), 18 units; Marina Plaza, 16 units; Hamptons, 7 units net. 2 Consisting of the following total units in approved projects: Vallco Shopping District, 2,402 units; Veranda (Barry Swenson site), 19 units; Marina Plaza, 188 units; Hamptons, 600 net new units. 337 CC 05-06-2025 337 of 554 4. The applicant has requested a density bonus. Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.56.070, before approving an application that includes a request for density bonus, incentive, parking reduction and/or waiver, the decision-making body shall make the following findings, as applicable: a) A finding that the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any incentives, parking reductions or waivers requested. The application is for a density bonus project that provides for 20.5% of its base density as Below Market Rate Housing. Because 12% of the base units on -site will be available to Very Low Income seniors, the project is eligible for a 38.75 density bonus, parking reduction, waivers, and up to two (2) incentives/concessions. b) A finding that the requested incentive(s) or concession(s) will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions based upon the documentation provided by the applicant and the findings of the peer reviewer, if incentive(s) or concession(s) are requested (other than mixed use development). Consolidation of BMR Units: On August 19, 2020, the City Council approved a concession to consolidate all BMR units in Building 2, rather than dispersing them throughout Building 1 and the Townhouse/Rowhouse portion. Reduction in Ground Floor Retail: In December 2021, the City Council approved a Heart of the City Exception to allow a reduced frontage along Stevens Creek to have retail uses (17,600 square feet of retail at the ground floor.) Since the project is eligible for two state density bonus law incentives and concessions, due to the amount of affordable housing provided with the project, the developer requests to use the second available incentive and concession to further reduce the required ground floor retail in Building 1. The currently approved retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create a more efficient building design for the applicant. The applicant proposes to do this by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than the previously approved, more expensive-to-build basement or upper-level building locations. c) If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all requirements included Section 19.56.030C have been met. The density bonus is not based on the donation of land, so the finding is not applicable. d) If the density bonus is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (D) have been met. The density bonus is not based on the inclusion of a childcare facility, so the finding is not applicable. 338 CC 05-06-2025 338 of 554 e) If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (E) have been met. The density bonus is not based on a condominium conversion, so the finding is not applicable. f) If the incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all requirements included in Section 19.56.40 (B) (2) have been met. While the project is a mixed-use development, the density bonus is not based on the mixed- used development as an incentive, so the finding is not applicable. g) If a waiver is requested, a finding that that the development standards for which the waivers are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted. Height and Slope Setback Waivers: On August 19, 2020, the City Council found that applying the height and slope setback limitations to Buildings 1 & 2 would physically preclude the project by: (a) decreasing the amount of proposed open space and landscaped areas below what is otherwise required by the City; (b) reducing the average size of senior units; (c) reducing commercial ceiling heights; (d) decreasing above-ground parking and increasing underground parking. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would not increase the previously approved Height and Slope Setback waivers since the height of the proposed building is lower and therefore, the waiver is reduced. h) If a reduction in off-street parking standards for an eligible housing development is requested, a finding that all the applicable requirements in Section 19.56.040.C have been met. (The project is eligible to provide 0.5 space per bedroom, which requires at least 11% very low income or 20% low income units; within one -half mile of a Major Transit Stop; and unobstructed Access to the Major Transit Stop.) The applicant is no longer requesting a reduction in off-street parking standards pursuant to State Density Bonus law. 5. Since the applicable findings required above can be made, the decision-making body may deny an application for a waiver only if one of the following written findings as applicable to each type of application, supported by substantial evidence: a) That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or There are no affected Historic Resources in the vicinity. 339 CC 05-06-2025 339 of 554 b) That the incentive, concession or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the residential project unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential project was deemed complete; or As evidenced by the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the First Addendum to the EIR, there are no significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential Project was deemed complete. c) That the incentive, concession or waiver is contrary to state or federal law. The requested waivers are not contrary to state or federal law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter and the Addendum, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 7 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project, the City Council hereby: 1. Determines that the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and 2. Adopts the First Addendum to the Initial Study and EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377) for the Westport Project; and 3. Approves the application for a Modification to the Development Permit, Application No. M-2024-003; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Applicatio n no. M-2024-003 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of April X, 2025 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 340 CC 05-06-2025 340 of 554 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set dated April 1, 2024 consisting of 12 sheets labeled as Westport Building 1: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, G00-G14, and A10 – A31, drawn by Studio Architects, Steinberg Hart, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT AND PRIOR APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file no. ASA-2024-003 shall be applicable to this approval. The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TR-2018-22, TM-2018- 03, TM-2021-002, DP-2018-05, U-2019-03, EXC-2019-03, EA-2018-04, EXC-2021-003, ASA-2021-007, and M-2021-003 shall be applicable to this approval unless in conflict with the conditions of approval of this resolution. 4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION Due to the reduction in retail commercial square footage in the development, 13,600 square feet of commercial allocation is returned to the available commercial allocation city-wide. 5. PARKING MODIFICATION The applicant will work with Staff to supply a further 20 parking spaces dispersed within the Building 1 parcel to accommodate the employees, guests, and residents of the assisted living facility (including memory care). 6. PARKING SPACE SIGNAGE All spaces within the development shall be marked to identify: a. Parking for retail use restricted to retail use during the hours of operation of the business b. Parking for Residential Building 2 for exclusive use c. Parking for Townhomes for exclusive use d. Parking for Residential Building 1 for exclusive use for employees, residents and guests 7. INDEMNIFICATION As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold 341 CC 05-06-2025 341 of 554 harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement. The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary 342 CC 05-06-2025 342 of 554 by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project. The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages. 8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE Prior to building permit issuance, the project is subject to payment of park fees in-lieu of park land dedication under the City’s Park Land Dedication Fee (Chapter 13.08 and Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for the 13 new dwelling units. The current fee is $30,000 per unit and may be subject to modifications per the City’s annual property assessment and latest fee schedule adjustment. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further requirements. 2. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED 343 CC 05-06-2025 343 of 554 Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) 3. STANDPIPES REQUIRED Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32. Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. CFC Sec. 905 4. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 6500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C. See approved hydrant spotting plan pc#20-4568 5. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 6. REQUIRED FIRE DEPT. ACCESS 344 CC 05-06-2025 344 of 554 Commercial and Industrial Developments 1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. 2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies) 1. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5 as adopted and amended by CUPMC. 7. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. 8. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED Provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification sheet A-1. cul-de-sac. CFC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by CUPMC. 9. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS 1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official. 10. TURN RADIUS (CIRCULATING): 345 CC 05-06-2025 345 of 554 The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends. 11. TIMING OF INSTALLATION When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 CFC Sec. 501.4 12. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72. 13. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33 14. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1 15. FIRE LANES REQUIRED The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required circulating access roadways and 60 feet where aerial access is required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. 346 CC 05-06-2025 346 of 554 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this Xth day of May 2025, by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino Date ATTEST: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk Date 347 CC 05-06-2025 347 of 554 1 J. ABRAMS LAW, P.C. 538 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Jim Abrams Jabrams@jabramslaw.com (415) 999-4402 VIA E-EMAIL June 18, 2024 Gian Martire Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 GianM@cupertino.org Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1 Dear Mr. Martire: This firm represents the project sponsor of the “Building 1” development (“Building 1”) within the Westport Cupertino project (the “Project”). This letter responds to your request for an explanation of the legal justifications authorizing the following modifications to the Building 1 approvals issued by the City Council on December 7, 2021: • Modify the approved senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units • Eliminate the basement-level parking garage; • Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet; and • Waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee. Though not discussed at length herein, we underscore that each of the above modifications are being pursued to make the construction of Building 1 and the overall approved Project financeable. Development of Building 1 is currently not financeable due to challenging capital market conditions, inflated construction costs, shifts in market demand, and expensive design elements in the currently approved design of Building 1. We respectfully submit that prompt processing of the modifications would further the goals of the City’s pending draft Housing Element, promote the use of the density bonus consistent with state law, reduce impact fees that constrain the production of housing, and streamline application processing. 348 CC 05-06-2025 348 of 554 2 Allowing Range of Dwelling Unit Density The Project’s records and approvals reflect that Cupertino’s General Plan and Zoning Code permit a maximum residential density on the site (that is, the site’s “base density”) of 237 units.1 Twenty-nine units (or 12% of the base density units) are designated as affordable to very low income households.2 Under the state density bonus law, this means the Project is eligible for a density bonus of up 38.75% and could contain up to 329 units.3 As currently approved, the Project includes 88 dwelling units in townhomes, 48 total affordable units in Building 2, and 123 dwelling units in Building 1, well below maximum permitted density under the state density bonus law.4 As there are no proposed changes to the Project’s townhome program or the Project’s on-site affordable program in Building 2, this means Building 1 is eligible to contain up to 193 units (237 base density units multiplied by 1.3875, less the 88 townhome units and 48 on-site affordable units). The project sponsor respectfully requests that the City Council modify the Project approvals to permit the final design of Building 1 to contain 136 dwelling units (this would be in addition to the 35 non-residential memory care units). The project sponsor will submit plans demonstrating that the increase in dwelling units would not require any increase to the approved height and bulk of Building 1. Instead, the unit count increase would be accommodated through floor plan modifications and minor façade alterations necessary to include additional balconies. Further, the submitted plans will demonstrate that the increase to 136 dwelling units would not require additional state density bonus law waivers or concessions. For example, the design of Building 1 with 136 dwelling units would satisfy increased open space requirements, along with other Code requirements associated with the increased unit count. The proposal would allow less than an 11% increase in dwelling unit count over the currently approved 123-unit count. This is well under the Project’s eligible 38.75% density bonus under the state density bonus law. Elimination of Subsurface Basement Garage Level After the 2021 City Council approval of the current Building 1 design and program, the state enacted AB-2097 (which prohibits cities from imposing minimum parking requirements on residential, commercial, and other development projects that are located within one-half mile of public transit.5 The Project’s approvals reflect that the Project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.6 1 See Figure 2 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s August 18, 2020 meeting. 2 An additional 19 units (8% of the base density units) are designated affordable to low-income households. 3 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(f)(2). 4 The project also includes 35 memory care units; however, the Project’s approval record clearly reflects that these units are not considered dwelling units by the City and are instead non-residential. 5 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2. 6 See page 25 of the Staff Report for the City Council’s August 18, 2020 and December 7, 2021 meetings. 349 CC 05-06-2025 349 of 554 3 While AB-2097 allows cities to impose minimum parking requirements under certain, limited circumstances,7 the City cannot apply this exemption because more than 20% of its units are dedicated to very low- and low-income households and/or the elderly.8 As such, the project sponsor is eligible to invoke AB-2097 to eliminate required parking minimums. The below-grade parking garage level in Building 1 was included solely for purposes of addressing the otherwise applicable minimum parking required by Cupertino. The project sponsor respectfully elects under AB-2097 to eliminate the basement level and associated parking. No change to Building 1’s current surface parking is proposed, which is permitted under AB-2097 as voluntarily included. Reduction in Ground Floor Retail The 2021 Heart of the City Exception approval for Building 1 requires 17,600 square feet of retail.9 Since 2021, the retail program has proven detrimental to the financial feasibility of Building 1 and thereby to completing the sitewide Project improvements associated with Building 1. This is because the current amount of retail occupies ground floor space that could be used to create significantly more efficient building design, achieved by locating required mechanical systems and back-of-house spaces on the ground floor level of Building 1 rather than current, more expensive-to-build basement or upper-level building locations. The Project’s approvals make clear that the Project only uses one of the two state density bonus law incentives and concessions for which it is eligible.10 The project sponsor now requests to use the second available incentive and concession to reduce required ground floor retail in Building 1. The cost-reduction rationale for modifying the otherwise applicable ground floor retail requirements for Building 1 meets the requirement that state density bonus law concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reduction.11 The successful construction of Building 1 is closely tied to the ability of the Building 2 operator to finance affordable housing costs, because, when completed, the users of Building 1 will pay for a share of on-going site maintenance costs of shared infrastructure with the Building 2 operator. Unless the financial feasibility of Building 1 is enhanced through the requested concession, Building 1 will not be constructed, and all of these costs will fall on the affordable housing at Building 2. 7 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2(b). 8 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65863.2(c)(1). 9 See Resolution No. 21-117. 10 See City Council Resolution Nos. 20-106 & 21-118. We note that these resolutions contain a condition of approval that purports to “waive” any future claim of the project sponsor to receive the second concession for which it is eligible under state law. The project sponsor would eliminate this condition through a revised application to be approved by the City Council along with the other design and program changes described herein; however, we note that nothing in the density bonus law or other state laws (including the Housing Accountability Act) support that the City may condition project approval upon an applicant’s permanent waiver of state law rights and benefits. Instead, we respectfully submit that a court and/or the state Housing and Community Development Housing Accountability Unit would find such a condition unlawful and unenforceable under state law. 11 See Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(k)(1). 350 CC 05-06-2025 350 of 554 4 Credit Against Park Land Dedication Fee At the revised 136-unit count, Building 1 would be required to pay approximately $4,080,000 ($30,000 per senior citizen housing development unit per City Council Resolution No. 23-094) under the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee. The project sponsor respectfully requests that the City Council waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee ordinance to help facilitate the implementation of Building 1 and completion of the Project. We believe that two important factors specific to the Building 1 development support this waiver. First, the development of Building 1 includes new pedestrian walkways connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The construction of the walkways is not strictly required by the City’s Zoning Code; however, will improve pedestrian circulation in the area, including between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Cupertino Memorial Park. Second, while senior citizen housing developments are subject to a lesser impact fee than general population housing projects, the project sponsor respectfully asserts that residents of the senior housing units in Building 1 cannot reasonably be anticipated to generate a material demand on city park lands and instead are more reasonably anticipated to use the open space amenities included in Building 1 and its publicly accessible, privately maintained Central Green. The November 2023 draft of the Cupertino Housing Element expressly requires the City to explore revising its Park Land Dedication Fee, including a specific reference to allowing credits for privately owned and maintained public open spaces and other pedestrian connections and trails. The Housing Element states that the objective of this revision would be to, among other things, facilitate a substantial amount of lower-income, moderate-income, and above moderate- income housing, such as the Project and its Building 1.12 Though the draft Housing Element provides that the City would have until June 2026 to complete the review and revision process, the project sponsor respectfully submits that waiving application of the Park Land Dedication Fee to the Building 1 more immediately advance the City’s goals, while still providing the City with the complete set of publicly accessible, privately maintained green spaces in the Project, as well as enhanced pedestrian circulation, all maintained at no on-going cost to the City. Sincerely, Jim Abrams 12 See Strategy HE-2.3.9 in November 2023 Draft Housing Element. 351 CC 05-06-2025 351 of 554 December 2024 | Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377 Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 City of Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Contact: Gian Martire, Senior Planner City of Cupertino | Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3319 GianM@cupertino.gov Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: Terri McCracken, Principal 2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400 Berkeley, California 94704 (510) 848-3815 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com 352 CC 05-06-2025 352 of 554 . 353 CC 05-06-2025 353 of 554 Table of Contents Introduction and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1-1 Standard for Preparation of an Addendum ................................................................................... 2-1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 OVERVIEW AND SETTING ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 APPROVED PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT ........................................................................................ 3-4 Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................ 4-9 4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................... 4-12 4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ....................................................................................... 4-14 4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................ 4-16 4.7 NOISE ............................................................................................................................. 4-18 4.8 TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................... 4-21 4.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 4-24 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT ........................................................................ 5-1 5.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................................... 5-1 5.3 NEW INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 5-1 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................. 6-1 354 CC 05-06-2025 354 of 554 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Project Site ................................................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2 Proposed Site Plan for Building 1 ...................................................................................... 3-6 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Development Analyzed in the Certified EIR ...................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2 Changes Following Certification of the EIR ....................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-3 Approved Project Compared to Proposed Modified Project ............................................ 3-4 Table 3-4 Units in Building 1 ............................................................................................................ 3-5 APPENDICES Appendix A: Trip Generation Study 355 CC 05-06-2025 355 of 554 Introduction and Purpose On August 19, 2020, the City of Cupertino certified Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse Number 2019070377, and approved the Westport Mixed-Use Project. This document is an Addendum to the 2020 EIR. For the purposes of this Addendum, the 2020 EIR is considered the “Certified EIR.” Following EIR certification, minor changes were made to the 2020 project (see Table 3-2, Changes Following Certification of the EIR) and approved by City Council. The 2020 project with these changes is considered the “Approved Project.” This document is the first Addendum to the Certified EIR. Since the time of the Certified EIR and Approved Project, the developer, Related Companies, has proposed modifications to the Approved Project from what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. For the purposes of this Addendum, the proposed modifications to the Approved Project are considered the “proposed Modified Project.” The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed Modified Project. Based on the information provided in this Addendum, construction and operation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. The proposed modifications to the Approved Project would not result in a substantial change to the project and, therefore, additional environmental review is not necessary. Detailed discussions of the standards for the preparation of an Addendum, the proposed modifications, and the environmental analysis of the proposed modifications are provided in Chapter 2, Standard for Preparation of an Addendum; Chapter 3, Project Description; and Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, respectively. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Cupertino is the lead agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed action. 356 CC 05-06-2025 356 of 554 This page has been intentionally left blank. 357 CC 05-06-2025 357 of 554 Standard for Preparation of an Addendum Pursuant to Section 21166, Subsequent or Supplement Impact Report; Conditions, of CEQA and Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:  Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;  Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or  New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified was adopted shows any of the following:  The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.  Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR or negative declaration.  Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.  Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present,1 the lead agency must determine whether to prepare an Addendum or whether no further CEQA documentation is required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An Addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or additions to the previously certified EIR are necessary, but there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration). 1 See also Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which applies the requirements of Section 15162 to supplemental EIRs. 358 CC 05-06-2025 358 of 554 In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate environmental document for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the Modified Project and examines whether, as a result of any changes or new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis pursuant to the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines concerning their applicability to the proposed Modified Project. 359 CC 05-06-2025 359 of 554 Project Description This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project as it compares to the Approved Project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the project site, as well as the proposed project features, approximate construction schedule, and required permits and approvals. 3.1 OVERVIEW AND SETTING 3.1.1 LOCATION AND SETTING The 8.1-acre project site evaluated in the Certified EIR is at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in the central portion of Cupertino, in Santa Clara County. Cupertino is approximately 46 miles southeast of San Francisco and is one of the cities that make up the area commonly known as Silicon Valley. Cupertino is north of the city of Saratoga, east of unincorporated Santa Clara County, south of the city of Sunnyvale, and west of the city of San José. Cupertino also shares a boundary with the city of Los Altos to the north. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 280 (I-280), State Route 85 (SR-85), Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus service, and by Caltrain via the Sunnyvale, Lawrence, and Santa Clara Caltrain Stations. The site is within the regional Plan Bay Area VTA City Cores, Corridors, & Station Areas priority development area (PDA). The closest VTA bus stop (Line 81) is at the Mary Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection, approximately 200 feet east of the site, and bus stops are at De Anza College, approximately 1,900 feet to the east at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/South Stelling Road intersection. The nearest Caltrain station to the project site is the Sunnyvale station, which is approximately 4 miles to the north. The project site is bounded by Mary Avenue to the north and east, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and a SR-85 onramp to the west, off Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project site is surrounded by the Glenbrook Apartments to the north, the Cupertino Senior Center and Cupertino Memorial Park to the east, De Anza College to the south, and residential and industrial land uses to the west beyond SR-85. The project site is directly accessible from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. 3.1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Since the time of the Certified EIR and Approved Project, the existing development (Oaks Shopping Center) on the project site has been demolished and each of the components of the Approved Project are developed and occupied except for the proposed Building 1, which is the subject of the proposed Modified Project. The eastern portion of the project site is dedicated to Building 1 and is currently graded and is a vacant dirt lot (see Figure 3-1, Aerial View of Project Site). No other aspects of the site conditions, including the General Plan Land Use designation or zoning district, have changed since the time of the Certified EIR. 360 CC 05-06-2025 360 of 554 Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Project Site 361 CC 05-06-2025 361 of 554 3.2 APPROVED PROJECT The Approved Project includes rowhouses, townhomes, and two residential/retail buildings to be developed across the entire 8.1-acre site. The development that was analyzed in the Certified EIR is shown in Table 3-1, Development Analyzed in the Certified EIR. TABLE 3-1 DEVELOPMENT ANALYZED IN THE CERTIFIED EIR Building Type Buildings Units Square Footage Residential Garage Retail Common Open Space Rowhouses 3 19 34,245 10,840 155 square feet per unit Townhomes 13 69 139,850 39,450 Residential-Retail Building 1 1 115 193,500 97,750 17,600 Residential-Retail Building 2 1 39 38,800 n/a 2,400 Total 18 242 406,395 148,040 20,000 37,601 Note: Square footages are rounded up and include residential and parking. Source: C2K Architecture Inc. , November 2018. As previously described in Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose, since the time of the Certified EIR, revisions were made to the development shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-2, Changes Following Certification of the EIR, shows the revisions made after EIR certification. As shown, the changes include an increase of 8 units in Building 1 and 9 units in Building 2 for a total increase of 17 units, which represents a 7 percent increase in overall units. TABLE 3-2 CHANGES FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR Building Type Project Approved Under Certified EIR Approved Project Units Residential (sf) Retail (sf) Units Residential (sf) Retail (sf) Difference Rowhouses and Townhomes 88 174,095 0 88 174,095 0 0 Building 1 115 + 35 non- residential memory units 193,500 17,600 123 + 35 non- residential memory units 199,800 17,60 0 +8 units Building 2 39 38,800 2,400 48 47,760 2,400 +9 units Total 242 406,395 20,000 259 421,655 20,00 0 +17 units Notes: sf = square feet Source: City of Cupertino, 2020. 362 CC 05-06-2025 362 of 554 3.3 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT The proposed Modified Project would result in the following changes to Building 1:  Increase the senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units from 123 dwelling units;  Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet from 17,600 square feet;  Eliminate the two subterranean parking levels to be located below Building 1. Table 3-3, Approved Project Compared to Proposed Modified Project, shows the modifications proposed for Building 1. No changes are proposed to the landscaping, access and circulation, bird safe design, or utilities connections. Thus, this Addendum includes an evaluation of the potential impacts associated with the differences shown in Table 3-3. The proposed Modified Project is shown on Figure 3-2, Proposed Site Plan for Building 1. TABLE 3-3 APPROVED PROJECT COMPARED TO PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT Building 1 Only Approved Project Proposed Modified Project Difference between Approved and Proposed Modified Project Residential 123 senior living units 35 memory care units 136 senior living units 35 memory care units + 13 senior living units Retail 17,600 sf 4,000 sf - 13,600 sf Vehicular Parking Spaces 191 0 -191 Entire Project Site Open Space 37,601 sf 47,780 sf +10,179 sf Notes: sf = square feet Source: Related Companies. (project applicant), April 2024 3.3.1 RESIDENTIAL The 117,303-square-foot building would be six stories tall with an overall height of 78 feet, 8 inches. This would be 8 feet and 8 inches taller than what was included in the Approved Project, but still within the allowable height of 80 feet with the Density Bonus. There would be a total of 171 units (136 senior living units and 35 memory care units). Of the 136 senior living units, 27 would be studios, 79 would be one bedroom, and 30 would be two bedrooms, as shown in Table 3-4, Units in Building 1. 363 CC 05-06-2025 363 of 554 TABLE 3-4 UNITS IN BUILDING 1 Level Gross Area (SF) Studio 530 SF 1 Bedroom 710 SF 2 Bedroom 1,110 SF Memory Care Total Units 6 27,562 0 11 5 0 16 5 34,979 9 21 7 0 37 4 34,709 9 21 7 0 37 3 34,716 9 21 7 0 37 2 35,742 0 5 4 35 44 1 27,728 0 0 0 0 0 Total 195,253 27 79 30 35 171 Notes: SF= square feet Source: Related Companies. (project applicant), April 2024. Building 1 would also include residential facilities including a memory care outdoor terrace on the second level; communal terrace on the sixth level; and pool/wellness center/gym on the ground level, all for resident use only; and a dining facility on the ground level, for use by residents and their guests only. 3.3.2 RETAIL The proposed Modified Project includes modifications to the retail component on the ground level of Building 1. Building 1 would have 4,000 square feet of retail space compared to the 17,600 square feet under the Approved Project. There would be 2,400 square feet on the southwest corner of Building 1 along Stevens Creek Boulevard and 1,600 square feet would be on the southeast corner of Building 1 at the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. At-grade parking for these retail uses would be provided along Mary Avenue. There would be no subterranean parking garage as originally described under the Approved Project. 3.3.3 VEHICULAR PARKING The proposed Modified Project would not include the subterranean parking garage under Building 1 but otherwise would not change access and circulation as is described under the Approved Project. All parking would be provided at grade. Residents and visitors of Building 1 would be provided with valet parking and staff parking would be coordinated off-site. Access to Building 1 would be from Mary Avenue to the north and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south. 3.3.4 OPEN SPACE Private open space areas would be provided for each residential unit either as a balcony or patio. Building 1 would include private balconies that range in size from 60 to 132 square feet per unit. Common open space areas would be provided to residents of Building 1 throughout the project site, including the central green space. The proposed Modified Project would include 47,789 square feet of common open space, an increase of 10,188 square feet of total project site open space from the Approved Project. 364 CC 05-06-2025 364 of 554 Figure 3-2 Proposed Site Plan for Building 1 365 CC 05-06-2025 365 of 554 3.3.5 CONSTRUCTION Construction of the proposed Modified Project would occur over an approximately 16-month period and is anticipated to be completed by the year 2027. Because the project site is currently graded, no demolition or haul of materials would occur. 3.3.6 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS The proposed Modified Project would add 13 additional units to Building 1 compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, based on an average household size of 2.94 persons,2 the proposed Modified Project would generate about 38 new residents. The proposed Modified Project would decrease retail space by 13,600 square feet compared to the Approved Project. Using the generation rates applied in the General Plan EIR,3 of 450 square feet of commercial space per employee, the proposed Modified Project would generate 30 fewer employees for the proposed retail uses.4 It is anticipated that future residents and employees would be drawn largely from Cupertino and other communities in the San Francisco Bay Area. 3.3.7 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS Following the approval of this Addendum and the proposed Modified Project, the following discretionary permits and approvals from the City would be required:  Development Permit  Architectural and Site Approval Permit  Use Permit 2 Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household 3 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, (December 2014) and approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007 (October 2015). 4 17,600 square feet of retail divided by 450 square feet per employee equals 39 employees for the Approved Project. 4,000 square feet of retail divided by 450 square feet per employee equals 9 employees. 366 CC 05-06-2025 366 of 554 This page has been intentionally left blank. 367 CC 05-06-2025 367 of 554 Environmental Analysis As previously described in Chapter 2, Standard for Preparation of an Addendum, this Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 to determine whether implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in any new impacts or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. As described in the Certified EIR, due to the proposed project’s location in an urbanized setting and a qualified infill site in a Transit Priority Area (TPA), the project would not have a significant effect on agriculture, forestry, mineral resources, or aesthetics. It was determined through the preparation of an Initial Study that development of the Approved Project would also not result in significant environmental impacts for the listed environmental issues and these issues were not evaluated further in the Certified EIR. The following provides an explanation of why the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts in these topics.  Energy. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would involve the same energy-conserving features of the Approved Project, would be on the same site, and would have less energy demand by eliminating the subterranean parking levels.  Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and general footprint as that of the Approved Project and associated impacts to groundwater recharge would be similar under either scenario. The same regulatory setting as that of the Approved Project applies to the proposed Modified Project and compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans identified in the Certified EIR would ensure that water quality standards would not be violated. The proposed Modified Project would be connected to the same municipal water supplies and would generate less water demand due to the elimination of the subterranean parking component.  Land Use and Planning. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and general footprint as Building 1 as that of the Approved Project and would include the same land uses. The proposed Modified Project would remain consistent with existing land use and zoning and the site’s Density Bonus pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.56, Density Bonus. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project, same as the Approved Project, would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.  Population and Housing. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would occur on the same site and same general footprint as the Approved Project and would result in about the same percentage of population growth with 13 additional senior living units (38 additional residents).  Public Services. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site, include the same land uses, and would generally generate the same population growth (38 additional residents and 30 fewer employees) as the Approved Project. 368 CC 05-06-2025 368 of 554  Recreation. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site near existing parks and provide the same facilities as the Approved Project, would roughly generate the same population growth (38 additional residents and 30 fewer employees). Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would create the need for new or improved recreational facilities, which could cause an environmental impact.  Wildfire. The proposed modifications to Building 1 would be on the same site as the Approved Project and not in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones. Accordingly, this Addendum only considers the extent to which the proposed modifications could result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts; it does not reevaluate impacts that would remain consistent with the analysis in the Certified EIR. The environmental topic areas analyzed in the Certified EIR include:  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources  Geology and Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Noise  Transportation  Utilities and Service Systems The sections below provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project and are organized to correspond with the standards of significance in the Certified EIR, consistent with Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines. Because the Initial Study determined that construction and operation of the Approved Project would not result in significant environmental impacts for some of the environmental checklist questions, the topics are presented as “Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study,” and “Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR.” Each section contains a summary of the findings of the evaluation, organized into the following columns:  Level of Impact in the Certified EIR presents the level of significance identified for the project analyzed in the Certified EIR, using the following acronyms:  NI = No Impact. For these topics, there is no adverse effect on the environment.  LTS = Less than Significant. These effects are noticeable but do not exceed established or defined thresholds, and no mitigation is required.  LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation. For these circumstances, an established or defined threshold would be exceeded, and a significant impact would occur; mitigation is required and would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.  Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project presents the level of significance identified for the proposed Modified Project based on the evaluation in this Addendum, using the following categories:  New Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Modified Project would have a noticeable but less-than-significant effect on the environment that was not identified in the Certified EIR.  Same Impact as Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project would create the same level of impact identified in the Certified EIR. 369 CC 05-06-2025 369 of 554  Less Impact than in Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project would create a noticeable effect on the environment, with a lesser level of impact than was identified in the Certified EIR.  Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project. The proposed Modified Project would not have the potential to create an impact on an environmental topic that was evaluated in the Certified EIR. 4.1 AIR QUALITY Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? NI X Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? LTS X AQ-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards? LTS/M X AQ-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LTS X AQ-4: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. LTS X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Discussion Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic of other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial amount of people has been screened out from further evaluation in this Addendum because the type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., 370 CC 05-06-2025 370 of 554 auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Residential and retail uses are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum. Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR AQ-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to conflicting with or obstructing the applicable air quality plan (2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) based on consistency with the General Plan’s land use designation and zoning district for the site, as well as the location within a PDA and a TPA . The proposed Modified Project would not change the location, nor the General Plan land use designation and zoning district of the project site. Additionally, the Approved Project was not considered a regionally significant project that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and warrant intergovernmental review by Association Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), nor would it exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) emissions thresholds. The proposed Modified Project, with minor changes to the residential units and nonresidential space, is not significant enough to change these findings. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan. AQ-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation during the construction phase and less than significant during operation for impacts associated with an increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The site has already been graded in preparation for construction of the Approved Project, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project, so the impact due to fugitive dust would be lessened for the remainder of the construction activities. The Approved Project would be required to comply with the BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures as described in Mitigation Measure AQ-2 in the Certified EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been replaced by compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1), which requires the project applicant to implement the BAAQMD Basic Control Measures included in the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter [PM2.5 and PM10]) during demolition, ground-disturbing activities, and/or construction. The project applicant shall include these measures in the applicable construction documents, prior to issuance of the first permit. As a result, the proposed Modified Project must control fugitive dust during construction in accordance with CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1) and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 as presented in the Certified EIR is no longer warranted. BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less than significant with implementation of BAAQMD’s best management practices. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to construction- related fugitive dust. Operational emissions for residential developments are typically generated from mobile sources (burning of fossil fuels in cars); energy sources (cooling, heating, and cooking); and area sources (landscape 371 CC 05-06-2025 371 of 554 equipment and household products). The Certified EIR found that none of the emission sources analyzed would create pollutant levels exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds under the Approved Project. The proposed Modified Project would include the same types of uses as the Approved Project and would eliminate the subterranean parking for residents and guests of Building 1. The residents and visitors would rely on valet parking. This would decrease the mobile source emissions estimated under the Approved Project. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum).5 The number of residential units in Building 1 under the proposed Modified Project would increase by 8 percent, though retail space would decrease by 30 percent. Overall, this would decrease the energy source and area source emissions under the proposed Modified Project. As mobile source emissions would generate the majority of increases in long- term criteria air pollutants, the decrease in daily vehicle trips due to the loss of parking would result in a decrease in operation-related emissions as well. As a result, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would not exceed the BAAQMD regional significance threshold. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the operational air quality impacts identified in the Certified EIR. AQ-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact associated with construction- and operational-related health risks (i.e., exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations). Construction-related activities of the Approved Project would result in emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., demolition, clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. The Certified EIR found that the maximum concentration of PM2.5 during construction of the Approved Project was 0.011 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), which is below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project construction was 2.23 per million based on an annual PM10 concentration of 0.012 μg/m3. Non-cancer hazards for DPM was below the BAAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.001 and an acute hazard index of 0.01. Construction of the proposed Modified Project would reduce the amount of DPM emissions, since site grading is complete and the subterranean parking garage is not included in the proposed Modified Project. The Certified EIR found that operation of the Approved Project would not be a source of toxic air contaminants. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. AQ-4: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with air quality under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project is all development within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants and basin- wide projections of emissions. There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 5 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 372 CC 05-06-2025 372 of 554 4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type. NI X Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. LTS X Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife corridors, or nursery sites. LTS X Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. NI X Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR BIO-1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status species. LTS/M X BIO-2: Conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources. LTS/M X BIO-3: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. LTS/M X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 373 CC 05-06-2025 373 of 554 Discussion Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding sensitive habitat, wetlands, migratory movement, and an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan have been screened out from further evaluation since the project site and surrounding area are urbanized and support roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, and ornamental landscaping. The project site is bound by roadways on all sides and property beyond the roadways is developed with residential, senior services, and educational land uses. Thus, there is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type or State or federally protected wetlands on the project site. The site contains no creeks or aquatic habitat that would support fish, and development would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurseries. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan includes the project site. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum. Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR BIO-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to having a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Though there are no known occurrences of special-status plant or animal species and no suitable habitat for such species on the project site, there is a possibility that birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code could nest in trees and other landscaping near the project site that could be disturbed during construction of Building 1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in the Certified EIR would require preconstruction surveys and protective measures for active nests. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), which requires the project applicant to avoid nesting birds during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance and CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2), which requires the project applicant to avoid special-status roosting bats during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance. Additionally, the Approved Project included designs to minimize the risk of bird collisions through the use of bird-safe design for window treatments, rooftop equipment, and night-time lighting. The applicant has committed to implementing bird-safe design measures in the new buildings, which would further address the low risk of collision. Further, bat species found in the Cupertino vicinity may forage and occasionally roost in the site vicinity, but suitable habitat conditions for maternity roots is absent from the project site. The potential for any special-status bat species to be present on the site is considered highly remote, given the urbanization of the site vicinity and intensity of human activity, which typically discourages possible occupation by special- status bats. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would adhere to CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), which outlines steps to avoid disturbance or removal of bird nests protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code and special-status bats. Further, the project site would 374 CC 05-06-2025 374 of 554 remain the same, is already graded, and would have similar construction activities as under the Approved Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to having a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. BIO-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to local ordinances and policies protecting biological resources. The Approved Project would not conflict with any relevant goals and policies in the General Plan related to the protection of biological resources. CMC Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees Ordinance, provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of trees of certain species and sizes. The Certified EIR described 14 trees that were proposed for removal under the Approved Project that qualified as Specimen trees pursuant to the Protected Trees Ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 in the Certified EIR would ensure the project complies with the City of Cupertino’s Protected Trees Ordinance. The proposed Modified Project would also be required to adhere to Mitigation Measure BIO-2; however, since the site is already graded, the removal of these required trees has already occurred. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to local ordinances and policies protecting biological resources. BIO-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with biological resources under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands. Cumulative development projects within the city are in urbanized areas of the city and contain limited biological resource value. Redevelopment and infill projects, including those in built-out urban areas, would remove vegetation that could be used for nesting by birds protected under various laws and would remove buildings and trees that could be used for roosting by sensitive bat species. However, these development projects would be required to follow applicable local and State regulations and impacts to nesting birds and the removal of protected trees, and for those in Cupertino, would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1) and CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(2). There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting since the certification of the Certified EIR and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development on the same project site. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 375 CC 05-06-2025 375 of 554 4.3 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. LTS X Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR CULT-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. LTS/M X CULT-2: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? LTS X CULT-3: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:  Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or  A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a California Native American tribe. LTS/M X CULT-4: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. LTS X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 376 CC 05-06-2025 376 of 554 Discussion Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding historic resources has been screened out from further evaluation since there are no local, State, or federally recognized historic properties on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. The historical building (Le Petit Trianon) at 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard is within 1 mile of the project site; however, construction of the Approved Project would not affect this structure. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum. Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR CULT-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to archaeological resources. The Certified EIR referenced the General Plan EIR and stated that the cultural resources study did not identify any known archaeological deposits on the project site.6 The project site and the surrounding area is already developed, though it could still contain subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 in the Certified EIR would provide protection protocols should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure CULT- 1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1), Protect Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, which contains cultural resources permit requirements that are necessary to protect archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources. Same as Mitigation Measure CULT-1, the CMC requirements include providing written verification to the City that contractors and construction crews have been notified of basic archaeological site indicators, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources, laws pertaining to these resources, and procedures for protecting cultural and tribal cultural resources. Since the time of the Certified EIR, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded and most of the construction is complete. The discovery of archaeological resources during ground disturbance is less likely to occur under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project. Further, the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) (i.e., Mitigation Measure CULT-1), which outlines what to do should an archaeology resource be discovered. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to archaeological resources. CULT-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to disturbing human remains. The Certified EIR found that there are no known human remains on the project site; however, the potential to unearth unknown remains during ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the proposed project could occur. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of 6 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. 377 CC 05-06-2025 377 of 554 human remains. As previously described, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded and most of the construction is complete with the exception of Building 1. The discovery of human remains during ground disturbance is less likely to occur at this remaining location under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to disturbing human remains. CULT-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to tribal cultural resources. As described under Impact CULT-1 and Impact CULT-2, no known archaeological resources, ethnographic sites, or Native American remains are located on the project site; however, the project site could contain undiscovered subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) would provide protection protocols should resources with traditional or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities cultural resources be discovered during ground disturbance. As previously described, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded, and most of the construction is complete with the exception of Building 1. The discovery of tribal cultural resources during ground disturbance is less likely to occur under the proposed Modified Project since minimal ground disturbance would be required under the proposed Modified Project, the project site location has not changed, and the subterranean parking garage has been removed from the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to tribal cultural resources. CULT-4: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with cultural and tribal cultural resources under the Approved Project. Impacts to cultural resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The significance of the impacts would depend largely on what, if any, cultural resources occur on or near the sites of related projects that are developed in the cumulative setting. Through compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E)(1) (i.e., Mitigation Measures CULT-1 and CULT-3), the Approved Project would not be cumulatively considerable. There have not been significant changes to the project site or cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less ground disturbance and less development than evaluated in the Certified EIR for the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 378 CC 05-06-2025 378 of 554 4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:  Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.  Strong seismic ground shaking.  Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.  Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards. NI X Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. LTS X Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. LTS X Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. LTS X Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. NI X Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR GEO-1: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. LTS/M X GEO-2: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. LTS X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. 379 CC 05-06-2025 379 of 554 Discussion Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding risk of loss, injury, or death involving ground shaking and liquefaction, substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, unstable soil, expansive soil, and alternative wastewater disposal systems have been screened out from further evaluation because development on the project site is subject to compliance with State and City building requirements and CMC Section 16.08.110, which requires the preparation and submittal of Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. Further, the project site is not in a seismically induced liquefaction hazard zone and development of the Approved Project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum. Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR GEO-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The certified EIR found that the geology and soils on the project site are common throughout the city and region and are not considered to be unique. Further, no paleontological resources have been identified within the project site. However, ground-disturbing construction associated with development of the Approved Project, specifically the excavation of the subterranean parking facilities, could cause damage to, or destruction of, unique paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would protect paleontological resources if they are discovered during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 has been replaced by CMC Section 17.04.050(H), Paleontological Resources Permit Requirements, which provides protocols to protect paleontological resources during construction that the project applicant must adhere to in the event that there is a find. The proposed Modified Project would remove the subterranean parking garage from the project, thus reducing ground-disturbing activities and lessening the likelihood that paleontological resources are discovered during construction of Building 1. Further, since the time of the Certified EIR, work on the Approved Project has begun, the site is fully graded, and most of the construction is complete. The proposed Modified Project would require minimal ground disturbance, and the project site location has not changed. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to paleontological resources. GEO-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with geology and soils under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project considers the buildout of the city and the region. Impacts to paleontological resources tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis and CMC Section 17.04.050(H) would be adhered to. There have not been significant changes to the project site or cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less ground disturbance and less development than evaluated in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 380 CC 05-06-2025 380 of 554 4.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? LTS X GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? LTS X GHG-3: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. LTS X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Discussion Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR GHG-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to generating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Construction of the Approved Project would result in direct emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) from the operation of construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site. The Certified EIR found that emissions from the Approved Project would be 58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year and would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold. Construction associated with the proposed Modified Project would use a similar type of construction equipment and transport of materials. The modifications to Building 1 would not alter the overall GHG emissions from construction on the project site, and the subterranean parking garage would not be included in the proposed Modified Project. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would result in less development and less construction emissions. 381 CC 05-06-2025 381 of 554 Operational GHG emissions of the Approved Project would result from direct emissions such as project- generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment, and would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the project, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project site, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the project site, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would generate 1,843 MTCO2e per year and the previous 71,250-square-foot shopping center on the project site generated 1,484 MTCO2e per year. The Approved Project’s emissions would represent a net increase in GHG emissions of 359 MTCO2e per year that would not exceed the BAAQMD’s screening threshold. The proposed Modified Project would increase residential units in Building 1 by 8 percent, decrease retail space by 30 percent, and eliminate the subterranean parking garage. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum).7 As a result, there would be a decrease in GHG emissions compared to the Approved Project and therefore would not increase emissions beyond what was evaluated in the Certified EIR. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to generating GHG emissions. GHG-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with consistency with California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s ) 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, and the Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Approved Project would be required to achieve the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards, comply with CMC Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, and would be required to build to LEED or an alternative reference standard and would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Further, because the Approved Project is an infill residential mixed-use development it would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area. Lastly, as an infill redevelopment priority housing development on a designated PDA and TPA, the Approved Project would be consistent with the overall intent of the CAP to support reductions in GHG emissions, and the Approved Project would not conflict with any goals or measures to reduce GHG emissions in the CAP. The proposed Modified Project would result in less development and continue to be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, and Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) as an infill development project in a PDA and TPA. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the magnitude of the impact identified in the Certified EIR with respect to consistency with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. GHG-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with GHG emissions under the Approved Project. The cumulative setting for the Approved Project is not confined to a particular air basin since GHG emissions are dispersed worldwide. The impact of the Approved Project is addressed in Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2. There have not been significant changes in cumulative setting and the proposed Modified Project would result in less development. Therefore, the proposed Modified 7 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20. Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 382 CC 05-06-2025 382 of 554 Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. LTS X Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. NI X For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area. NI X Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. LTS X Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. NI X Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR HAZ-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. LTS X HAZ-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? LTS X HAZ-3: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. LTS/M X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation 383 CC 05-06-2025 383 of 554 Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Discussion Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment has been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential development, is not a type of project that would create a hazardous materials threat to the users of the site or the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division would be required through the duration of the construction of the Approved Project. The topics regarding the location of the site on a hazardous materials site and within an airport land use plan have also been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project is not on a hazardous materials site or in an airport land use plan. The Approved Project would not block roads and would not impede emergency access to surrounding properties or neighborhoods nor is it in a very high fire hazard severity zone in the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino or in the General Plan designated Wildland-Urban Interface Area. Thus, the topics regarding interfering with an emergency response plan or risk involving wildland fires have been screened out. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum. Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR HAZ-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner to minimize the potential for safety impacts. Further, none of the soils at the project site that were proposed to be excavated for off-site disposal contain elevated concentrations exceeding federal or State hazardous waste levels. Like the Approved Project, construction under the proposed Modified Project would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials. Further, less soil would be exported from the project site since the proposed Modified Project no longer includes the subterranean parking garage. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. HAZ-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to hazardous emissions within 0.25 miles of a school. De Anza College is directly south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, within 140 feet of the project site. In addition, one preschool is within 0.25 miles of the project site. The Certified EIR described that since Impacts HAZ-1 and AQ-3 were both less than significant, there would be no hazardous emissions released near the schools under the Approved Project. 384 CC 05-06-2025 384 of 554 The proposed Modified Project would be on the same project site and construction of the proposed Modified Project would not greatly alter construction emissions and would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to emitting hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. HAZ-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the Approved Project. Under the Approved Project, the excavation, hauling, and disposal of potentially contaminated soils would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the city. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include similar construction activities and materials. Thus, the excavation, hauling, and disposal of potentially contaminated soils under the proposed Modified Project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the city. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 4.7 NOISE Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. NI X Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR NOISE-1: Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or federal standards. LTS/M X NOISE-2: Generation of excessive groundborne noise levels. LTS X NOISE-3: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. LTS/M X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation 385 CC 05-06-2025 385 of 554 Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Discussion Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topic regarding the location of the project site near an airport has been screened out from further evaluation since the proposed project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The nearest public airports are San José International Airport, approximately 7 miles to the northeast, and Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.5 miles to the northwest. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum. Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR NOISE-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation impact with respect to increasing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Sensitive receptors near the project site include residences approximately 90 feet north of the site, the Cupertino Senior Center approximately 80 feet east of the site, and De Anza College approximately 140 feet south of the site, across Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Certified EIR found that during construction of the Approved Project, the highest noise levels would occur during the grading and demolition phases and would be 75.9 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) during the grading phase and 79.5 dBA Lmax during the demolition phase at the nearest receptor. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 in the Certified EIR would ensure construction noise levels do not exceed the City’s standard of 80 dBA. This includes requiring appropriate work timing, notifications, and noise-reducing measures. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 has been replaced with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2), Manage Noise During Construction, which requires the applicant and contractor to submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the first permit. The Construction Noise Control Plan would demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits based on the type of construction equipment, distance of construction activities from sensitive receptors, site terrain, and other project features. Construction of the proposed Modified Project would likely use the same equipment and type of construction at the same location. Therefore, noise generated by construction of the proposed Modified Project would likely be the same as the Approved Project; however, the grading and demolition have already been completed and noise from those activities would be less for the proposed Modified Project. Further, the subterranean parking garage is not included in the proposed Modified Project, so no excavation and soil haul would be required. Thus, impacts would be less than evaluated in the Certified EIR with compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1). Operational noise issues evaluated in the Certified EIR include vehicle traffic noise as well as stationary source noise (e.g., mechanical equipment, on-site trucks/loading docks). The Certified EIR found that the new trips from the Approved Project would not have a significant impact on traffic noise levels as the increase would be less than 3 dBA. Based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation 386 CC 05-06-2025 386 of 554 Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum).8 Stationary noise from the Approved Project would be similar to typical residential, mixed-use development with most noise occurring in the daytime. Noise from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC ) units, landscaping maintenance, parking, and truck deliveries would be likely but would not create greater noise levels than currently exist in the vicinity. The proposed Modified Project would include 13 more senior living units, 13,600 square feet less commercial space resulting in 30 fewer employees, and elimination of the subterranean parking garage, which would reduce traffic noise when compared to the Approved Project. Further, operation of the proposed Modified Project would include similar noise-generating activities, typical of residential development as evaluated in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. NOISE-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to generating excessive groundborne noise levels. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Approved Project would be primarily associated with construction-related activities such as jackhammering and using bulldozers or large trucks. Pile drivers were not included for construction under the Approved Project. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors would be the building 82 feet to the north. Based on typical vibration levels, ground vibration generated by other heavy-duty equipment could reach levels of 0.035 inches per second (in/sec) Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) at 82 feet. The use of construction equipment would not result in a groundborne vibration velocity level above the established threshold of 0.20 in/sec PPV. Further, operation of the Approved Project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no notable sources of vibrational energy associated with the Approved Project, such as heavy industrial machinery, railroad, or subway operations. Construction of the proposed Modified Project would use the same construction equipment as the Approved Project. Additionally, without the inclusion of the subterranean parking garage, there would be less groundborne vibration during project construction. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. NOISE-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant with mitigation cumulative impact associated with noise under the Approved Project. At the time of the Certified EIR, the nearest cumulative project was the Loc-N-Stor project at 10655 Mary Avenue about 0.5 miles to the north. This project was under preliminary review and no construction timeline had been established. With compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1), construction noise levels would not exceed 80 dBA for the surrounding off-site sensitive receptors. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include similar construction activities and materials and would implement CMC Section 17.04.050(G)(2) (i.e., Mitigation Measure NOISE-1). Since certification of the Certified EIR, the Loc-N-Stor project still has not begun construction. Even if the Loc-N- 8 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 387 CC 05-06-2025 387 of 554 Stor project were to be constructed at a similar time as the proposed Modified Project, it would be considered too far away to cause a cumulative construction noise impact. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 4.8 TRANSPORTATION Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). LTS X Result in inadequate emergency access. LTS X Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR TRANS-1: Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. LTS X TRANS-2: Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). LTS X TRANS-3: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in additional cumulatively considerable impacts. LTS X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Discussion Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding an increase in road hazards or inadequate emergency access have been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project, a mixed-use commercial and residential development, would not modify any design features to a public road or introduce a potentially unsafe feature that would increase hazards and access for emergency vehicles would be provided from access points off Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The circulation pattern on the project site would 388 CC 05-06-2025 388 of 554 allow emergency vehicles full access to all internal streets. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum. Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR TRANS-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would generate 3 fewer (or negative 3) inbound trips and 50 new outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and 4 new inbound and 26 fewer (or negative 26) outbound trips during the PM peak hour. In regard to pedestrian facilities, the Approved Project would be expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the existing sidewalks and crosswalks in the area by 20 percent, so the Approved Project would include an internal sidewalk and bicycle network, in addition to sidewalk modifications along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. Thus, the Approved Project would not eliminate or impede any existing pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any of the goals and policies in the City’s Pedestrian Plan. The Approved Project would also install a Class IV separated bikeway on the portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard and a Class I bike path on the western portion of the project site to connect Stevens Creek Boulevard to Mary Avenue. Further, the Approved Project would include a total of 117 bicycle parking spaces and would be consistent with the City’s bike plan. Lastly, the Approved Project would also install a bus stop on the section of Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Mary Avenue and east of the SR-85 northbound ramp and the new transit trips generated by the Approved Project are not expected to create a significant demand in excess of the capacity of the transit service that is currently provided. The proposed Modified Project only includes modifications to Building 1 and would not impact the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities included under the Approved Project. The subterranean parking garage would not be included in the proposed Modified Project and parking for residents and visitors of Building 1 would be off-site. With respect to generated trips, based on a trip generation study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the proposed Modified Project, there would be 839 fewer daily trips under the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix A, Trip Generation Study, of this Addendum). 9 As described in Appendix A, the increase in residential units under the proposed Modified Project would increase trip generation for the residential portion by 32 daily trips and the reduction in retail in Building 1 would reduce trip generation by 871 daily trips. Overall, there would be less trips generated by the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicts with policies addressing the circulation network. TRANS-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The Approved Project is a residential mixed-use development on an infill site recognized as a PDA and TPA by the regional Plan Bay Area. The Certified EIR found that the Approved Project would produce an approximate annual VMT of 2,662,683 miles, or a daily VMT of 7,295 miles. This would be a reduction of approximately 120,064 miles annually, or 329 miles daily from existing conditions at the time of the Certified EIR. 9 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2024, September 20, Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. 389 CC 05-06-2025 389 of 554 As described in Impact TRANS-1, the proposed Modified Project would increase residential units by 8 percent and decrease retail space by 30 percent. This would generate 839 fewer trips under the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), projects within 0.25 miles of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. On February 16, 2021, the City adopted CMC Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides screening criteria and VMT thresholds for land-use development projects, transportation projects, and other projects pursuant to CEQA. As previously described, the location of the project site meets this criterion. Accordingly, no transportation impacts related to VMT from the proposed Modified Project are presumed. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). TRANS-3: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with transportation under the Approved Project. Impact TRANS-1 and Impact TRANS-2 in the Certified EIR addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the city and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts would be the same as those discussed previously and no additional analysis is warranted. Like the Certified EIR, Impact TRANS-1 and Impact TRANS-2 address cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the city and its surroundings under the proposed Modified Project. Fewer trips would be generated under the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project does not include any changes to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities described in the Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 390 CC 05-06-2025 390 of 554 4.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Proposed Modified Project: Level of Impact in the Certified EIR Environmental Effects of the Proposed Modified Project New Less- Than- Significant Impact Same Impact as Certified EIR Less Impact Than Certified EIR Topic Not Applicable to the Proposed Modified Project Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study Require or result in the construction of new water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. LTS X Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. LTS X Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. LTS X Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. LTS X Standards Evaluated in the Certified EIR UTIL-1: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. LTS/M X UTIL-2: In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater treatment. LTS/M X Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation Summary of Analysis No new significant or more severe impact than analyzed in the Certified EIR. Discussion Standards Determined to Have No Significant Impact in the Initial Study The topics regarding the construction of new water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities; insufficient water supplies; and generating solid waste have been screened out from further evaluation. The Approved Project would connect to existing City infrastructure and demand would not exceed existing capacity of the infrastructure. Further, the General Plan EIR considered development in the city through the 2040 buildout horizon and found 391 CC 05-06-2025 391 of 554 that the buildout of the General Plan would not result in insufficient water supplies or other utilities.10 Accordingly, no further analysis regarding these standards of significance is required, and these issues are not discussed further in this Addendum. The topic regarding regulations related to solid waste has also been screened out from further evaluation since the Approved Project would be required to follow the City’s CAP and Zero Waste Policy regarding operational waste and CMC Chapter 16.7 regarding construction waste. Accordingly, no further analysis regarding this standard of significance is required, and this issue is not discussed further in this Addendum. Topics Evaluated in the Certified EIR UTIL-1: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant impact with mitigation with respect to wastewater capacity. Wastewater would be treated at the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP). The General Plan EIR found that the estimated wastewater generation from the Approved Project and from other potential projects, as established by the General Plan and other approved projects, is the total capacity needed to serve the General Plan buildout.11 Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 of the Certified EIR would ensure that no building permits shall be issued by the City for the Approved Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 million gallons per day (mgd) through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system and would require the applicant to demonstrate that the Approved Project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 has been replaced by CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, which includes Utilities and Service Systems Permit Requirements in Section 17.04.050(I) to manage wastewater inflow and infiltration to the sewer system. The proposed Modified Project would increase the residential units of Building 1 by 8 percent but decrease the retail space by 30 percent. Thus, there would a decrease in overall wastewater created by the proposed Modified Project. Further, the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with CMC Section 17.04.050(I) (i.e., Mitigation Measure UTIL-1), which would ensure that modifications to Building 1 would not exceed the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. Accordingly, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to wastewater treatment provider capacity. UTIL-2: The Certified EIR identified a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with utilities and service systems with respect to wastewater treatment under the Approved Project. Impact UTIL-1 in the Certified EIR addresses cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment since it considers the impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with the citywide wastewater generation and demand and all development in Cupertino is bound to the same treatment allocation contractual limits and contributes to demand on the SJ/SCWPCP wastewater treatment capacity. Like the Certified EIR, Impact UTIL-1 addresses cumulative impacts to wastewater generation and treatment capacity. Further, less wastewater would be created with the decrease in retail space under the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the magnitude of the impacts identified in the Certified EIR related to cumulative impacts. 10 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems. 11 City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.9, Utilities and Service Systems. 392 CC 05-06-2025 392 of 554 This page has been intentionally left blank. 393 CC 05-06-2025 393 of 554 Conclusion As summarized in the following sections and for the reasons described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, the City has concluded that the proposed Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts not previously identified in the Certified EIR; nor would it result in a substantial increase in the severity of any significant environmental impact previously identified in the Certified EIR. For these reasons, a subsequent EIR is not required, and an Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate CEQA document to address the proposed Modified Project. 5.1 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT The proposed Modified Project is not a substantial change to the Certified EIR because it is on the same project site as the Approved Project, makes minor modifications to Building 1, and removes the subterranean parking garage. It does not significantly alter what was evaluated in the Certified EIR and most impacts would be less than evaluated in the Certified EIR. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed that will require major revisions of the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 5.2 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR, would not substantially increase the severity of significant environmental effects identified in the Certified EIR, and thus would not require major revisions to the Certified EIR. The proposed Modified Project, therefore, is not substantial and does not require major revisions to the Certified EIR or preparation of a subsequent EIR. In addition, beyond the site preparations and construction to the rest of the Approved Project, the physical conditions of the project site and vicinity have not changed substantially since the certification of the Certified EIR. 5.3 NEW INFORMATION There has been no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known when the Certified EIR was certified in 2020, that shows that the proposed Modified Project would be expected to result in: (1) new significant environmental effects not identified in the Certified EIR; (2) substantially more severe environmental effects than shown in the Certified EIR; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible that would in fact be feasible and would 394 CC 05-06-2025 394 of 554 substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those identified in the Certified EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 395 CC 05-06-2025 395 of 554 List of Preparers City of Cupertino Gian Martire .................................................................................. Senior Planner, Community Development PlaceWorks Terri McCracken ................................................................................................. Principal, Principal-in-Charge Rachel Goren ........................................................................................................ Associate, Project Manager Christopher Giamarino ................................................................. Associate, Geographic Information System Grant Reddy ....................................................................................................................... Graphics Specialist Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Gary Black ......................................................................................................................................... President Jonathan Chang ................................................................................................................................. Engineer 396 CC 05-06-2025 396 of 554 This page has been intentionally left blank. 397 CC 05-06-2025 397 of 554 A PPENDIX A T RI P G E N ER A T I O N S T U D Y 398 CC 05-06-2025 398 of 554 399 CC 05-06-2025 399 of 554 Memorandum Date: September 20, 2024 To: Ms. Rachel Goren, PlaceWorks From: Gary Black, Jonathan Chang Subject: Trip Generation Study for the Proposed Assisted Living and Retail Development for the Westport Development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, CA Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a trip generation study for the proposed assisted living and retail development at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. The proposed project consists of 136 units for assisted living and 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of retail space. This newly proposed plan will replace a previously approved project with 124 units for assisted living and 20,000 s.f. of retail space. Project Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by many types of land uses. The research is compiled in the manual entitled Trip Generation, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE). The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. The ITE trip generation rates for Assisted Living (Land Use 254) and Strip Retail Plaza (Land Use 822) were used for this study. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is estimated to generate 839 fewer daily vehicle trips than the previously approved project, with 22 fewer trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 52 fewer trips during the PM peak hour. In conclusion, the new proposed project would generate fewer trips than the previously approved project, so there is no need for additional traffic analysis. Table 1 Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Rate Trips Rate In %In Out Total Rate In %In Out Total Proposed Uses Assisted Living1 136.0 d.u.2.60 354 0.18 60%14 10 24 0.24 39%13 20 33 Retail2 4.0 ksf 54.45 218 2.36 60%5 4 9 6.59 50%13 13 26 Approved Uses Assisted Living1 124 d.u.2.60 (322)0.18 60%(13)(9)(22)0.24 39%(12)(18)(30) Retail2 20 ksf 54.45 (1,089)2.36 60%(28)(19)(47)6.59 50%(66)(66)(132) Net Project Trips -839 -22 -14 -36 -52 -51 -103 d.u. = dwelling unit ksf = 1,000 square feet 1 2 Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Notes: Assisted Living (Land Use 254) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. Strip Retail Plaza (Land Use 822) average rates published in ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. 400 CC 05-06-2025 400 of 554 401 CC 05-06-2025 401 of 554 PROPERTY LINE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVER O W H O U S E R O W H O U S E R O W H O U S E TOWNHOUSE TO W N H O U S E TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSE TOWNHOUSETOWNHOUSETOWNHOUSE TO W N H O U S E TO W N H O U S E TO W N H O U S E EASEMENT EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE BLDG 2: BMR SENIOR LIVING / RETAIL BLDG 1: SENIOR LIVING / RETAIL BMR SENIOR LIVING BMR SENIOR LIVING LOBBY / OFFICE / MAIL LOADING / TRASH PARKING GARAGE LOBBY LOBBY LOUNGE CENTRAL GREEN CENTRAL GREEN SITE AREA LEGEND: BUILDING COVERAGE AREA = 111,997 SF 111,997 / 343,958 = 32.56% NET SITE HARDSCAPE AREA = 136,582 SF 136,582 / 343,958 = 39.70% NET SITE LANDSCAPE AREA = 95,378 SF 95,378 / 343,958 = 27.73% NET SITE NET SITE AREA = 343,958 SF (7.9 Acres) GROSS AREA RETAIL = 20,000 SF SURFACE PARKING AREA = 15,577 SF GROSS SITE AREA = 352,836 SF (8.1 Acres) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOBBIES/ SUPPORT SPACE RETAIL 6 6 6 6 6 BLDG 1: SENIOR LIVING / RETAIL 17,405 SF 10,000 SF 92,278 SF 112,392 SF 112,392 / 343,958 = 32.67% NET SITE 137,598 SF 137,598 / 343,958 = 40.00% NET SITE 92,278 / 343,958 = 26.82% NET SITE 7 7 7 On the entitled set this sheet is G206A. All three Westport parcel site areas were represented together. This updated sheet reflects the changes proposed for Building 1 site only. Any updates from other parcels (Building 2, Townhomes) are not reflected here. 09.28.2021 137,078 137,078 CENTRAL GREEN BLDG 1: SENIOR LIVING / RETAIL 17,600 SITE AREA LEGEND: BUILDING COVERAGE AREA = 111,997 SF 111,997 / 343,958 = 32.56% NET SITE HARDSCAPE AREA = 136,582 SF 136,582 / 343,958 = 39.70% NET SITE LANDSCAPE AREA = 95,378 SF 95,378 / 343,958 = 27.73% NET SITE NET SITE AREA = 343,958 SF (7.9 Acres) GROSS AREA RETAIL = 20,000 SF SURFACE PARKING AREA = 15,577 SF GROSS SITE AREA = 352,836 SF (8.1 Acres) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOBBIES/ SUPPORT SPACE RETAIL 6 17,405 SF 10,000 SF 92,278 SF 112,392 SF 112,392 / 343,958 = 32.67% NET SITE 137,598 SF 137,598 / 343,958 = 40.00% NET SITE 92,278 / 343,958 = 26.82% NET SITE On the entitled set this sheet is G206A. All three Westport parcel site areas were represented together. This updated sheet reflects the changes proposed for Building 1 site only. Any updates from other parcels (Building 2, Townhomes) are not reflected here. 11.0' D 209GGREASETALLOW BIN A-A -SIM APOLLO MODEL A1000 STATIONARYHAND-FED COMPACTOR (2) TOTAL 1/8" THICK STEEL DIAMONDTREAD BACKING, TYPSEE NOTE 4120V 15A SERVICEOUTLET, SEE NOTE 10 HB 1HR FIRE-RATED WALL BY OTHERSTYP (S.A.D.) SEE NOTE 3 PP 4CY FLCOMPACTOR CONTAINERCOMBINED WASTE PP 4CY FLCOMPACTOR CONTAINERCOMBINED RECYCLING ELEC. PALLETTRUCK SEE NOTE 9 7'-0 " W I D E R O L L - U P D O O R OC SPARE 4CY FLCOMPACTORCONTAINERCOMBINED RECYCLING 3CY FL LOOSE CONTAINERCOMBINED COMPOST SPARE 4CY FLCOMPACTORCONTAINERCOMBINED WASTE FD 3'-0 " F I R E EGR E S S D O O R 1 1 '-1 0 " WELLNESS/GYM/POOL RETAIL ADMIN/OFFICE ADMIN LOBBY/LOUNGE MAIN DINING MAIN KITCHEN STAFF/BOH AMENITIES = 17,118 sf BOH/SUPPORT = 9,043 sf LOBBY/LOUNGE GROSS AREA RETAIL = 4,000 sf Enhanced Senior and Living Project (Revised)04.01.20248 8 8 8 BLDG 1 RETAIL BOH/MECH 402 CC 05-06-2025 402 of 554 From:Sarah Schueler To:Gian Martire Subject:[Urgent] Re: Westport Plan amendments - please review Date:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:06:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Martire, I am writing on behalf of the concerned residents of Arroyo Village and Glenbrook Apartments, located near the proposed Westport Senior Living Community. After reviewing the arguments presented by the builder/owner, Jim Abrahms, we would like to express our concerns to the city’s elected officials and sincerely hope that these issues will be taken into consideration. Overall concerns: 1. Revisions to the Original Agreement: The builder/owner of the Westport Community made several promises to city officials and to nearby residents, committing to the construction of a community that would not negatively impact the City of Cupertino. However, the builder has since revised the plans multiple times, now proposing a new design that primarily benefits the builder's profits, while disregarding the needs of future residents and the surrounding community. [Further details of these concerns are outlined below.] 2. Rethinking the Lot Ownership: There is a risk that the builder may continue to revise the plans in ways that reduce construction costs, ultimately leaving the city with an abandoned structure. Now is the time for the city to make tough decisions, either by asking the builder to propose alternative solutions or by purchasing the site for more beneficial uses in the future (e.g., a new senior center, daycare facility, or recreational space). Cupertino has limited prime real estate, and it should not be compromised to save money for a builder at the expense of the residents who contribute significantly in taxes. 3. Traffic and Safety Issues: The traffic and crosswalk situation at Mary and Memorial Park is already dangerous for families, children, and the elderly. Vehicles rarely stop, and with the new construction, visibility will be further impaired, making it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians in time and potentially leading to fatal accidents. Arguments Raised by the Builder Retail and Garage Concerns: Lack of Effort in Retail Space Development: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly promoted, and the placement of benches along that side of the building makes it difficult for potential merchants to envision occupying the space. Insufficient Parking for Retail Visitors: If the builder does not add more underground 403 CC 05-06-2025 403 of 554 parking, the existing parking spots will be fully occupied by residents, leaving no space for retail visitors. This lack of designated parking is already a problem, as current parking spots are often filled throughout the day, and there is no additional parking available due to the limited spaces on 85 Entrance and Mary (which only allows permit parking). Inadequate Parking for Residents: With the proposed increase in units, parking will become even more strained. The current plan provides fewer than 30% of the required parking spaces for residents. This suggests that fewer than 30% of residents will own cars, which is highly unlikely, especially considering that some residents may not have access to nearby transit hubs. Unkept Promises to Current Residents: Current residents were initially promised underground parking for the next phase of construction. This promise has now been abandoned, creating further frustration for those living in the Westport community. Arguments Raised by the Builder Retail and Garage Concerns: Lack of Effort in Retail Space Development: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly promoted, and the placement of benches along that side of the building makes it difficult for potential merchants to envision occupying the space. The builder instead uses the building 1 residents as scapegoats to carry the burden of failed retail. (page 3 of Jim Abraham's letter). Insufficient Parking for Retail Visitors: If the builder does not add more underground parking, the existing parking spots will be fully occupied by residents, leaving no space for retail visitors. This lack of designated parking is already a problem, as current parking spots are often filled throughout the day, and there is no additional parking available due to the limited spaces on 85 Entrance and Mary (which only allows permit parking). Inadequate Parking for Residents: With the proposed increase in units, parking will become even more strained. The current plan provides fewer than 30% of the required parking spaces for residents. This suggests that fewer than 30% of residents will own cars, which is highly unlikely, especially considering that some residents may not have access to nearby transit hubs. Unkept Promises to Current Residents: Current residents were initially promised underground parking for the next phase of construction. This promise has now been abandoned, creating further frustration for those living in the Westport community. Park Land Dedication fee Argument: Contradiction in the Builder’s Argument: The builder claims that future residents will be able to walk 0.5 miles to a "major public transit hub," yet they argue that these same residents will be unable to walk to the nearby park, which is less than 0.5 miles away. This contradiction suggests that the builder is trying to circumvent the $4M agreement, which would significantly impact both current residents and the city. 404 CC 05-06-2025 404 of 554 Impact on Existing Residents: Residents of Building 1 regularly utilize nearby facilities, such as the park, senior center, and Quilan Community Center. They also frequently walk their pets in the park. The addition of new residents would put additional strain on these public amenities, including the park and nearby transit options, potentially leading to increased trash and other environmental impacts. Sidewalk argument: The current proposal does not offer a better pedestrian flow and the existing sidewalks / crosswalks offer the only way into Memorial Park, the new structure actually increases risks rather than improves the situation. ---------------- We sincerely hope that our elected city officials will carefully consider these concerns before agreeing to any further changes proposed by the builder. The builder’s main priority seems to be maximizing profits at the expense of the community’s well-being—whether through circumventing the $4M agreement, increasing the number of units to boost profits, or worsening parking and traffic conditions for existing residents. Unfortunately, due to the arrival of my newborn son, I will be unable to attend the upcoming meeting. However, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with any city official in person to discuss these concerns. I strongly urge the city to engage with community members, not just the builder, to ensure that our voices are heard. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kind regards, Sarah Schueler 405 CC 05-06-2025 405 of 554 #129769 Concern with the modification to the Westport Project Submitted February 23, 2025 at 5:59 PM Received via Mail Requester greatben3 <greatbena@gmail.com> Status Solved Type - Priority Normal Group Planning Assignee Gian Martire Address 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd Planning Request Type Planning Permit Submission/Resubmission greatben3 February 23, 2025 at 5:59 PM Dear Director, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the latest modification to the WestPort Project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard. In particular, the modification seems to include the elimination of the underground garage. As a current resident and home owner of the Arroyo Village community, we are quite frustrated by the lack of guest parking availability as it is now. At the moment, there are 21 guest parking spots within the community, and 40 parking spots that are near the existing senior apartments. These parking spots are almost always full, and primarily occupied by the residents of the senior apartments (which does not have dedicated underground parking). With the addition of 136 new units in the larger senior apartment, but only 40 more ground parking spots, I could not see how this would allow a reasonable life quality for whoever lives in the new senior apartments, let alone allowing any guests to find parking within the Arroyo Village community. Imagine a senior resident returning to home from grocery shopping, only to find no parking available, and the nearest public parking is either the Cupertino Sports Center or Target. They would have to hand carry all the grocery and walk a quarter mile to get home. Eventually, people will learn to avoid using their cars whenever possible, so as to not lose the precious parking spot that they currently occupy. These situations are common in Beijing or Tokyo, where parking is scarce and expensive, but I did not expect people living in a newly built apartment in the center of Cupertino would have to face the same difficulty. I understand that there will be a public hearing to discuss the modification proposal, but I am unable to attend due to some conflicts. If this item is being discussed as part of the modification proposal, please take this fact into your careful consideration. Also please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions regarding the current situation of the parking space. Thank you Hanchi C. Gian Martire February 25, 2025 at 4:50 PM Thank you for your comment. I will add this to the file and include it in the staff report. Support Software by Zendesk 2/25/25, 4:51 PM cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/129769/print https://cupertino.zendesk.com/tickets/129769/print 1/1406 CC 05-06-2025 406 of 554 From:Luke Connolly To:Gian Martire Subject:FW: Project Changes At Westport Date:Sunday, March 2, 2025 4:44:43 PM FYI. Luke Connolly​​​​ Assistant Director of Community Development Community Development LukeC@cupertino.gov (408)777-1275 From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 3:59 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov> Cc: Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.gov>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com> Subject: Fw: Project Changes At Westport What's the approval process for the following amendment for the Westport project plus a reduction in parking? "Development Permit Amendment and Architectural & Site Approval to modify Building 1 to increase the residential unit from 123 units to 136 units (an overall increase of 13 units), eliminate the basement-level parking garage, reduce the ground floor retail from ~12,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., and a request to waive the Park Land Dedication Fee. " The Westport site has been sold to three property owners as I understand. Would the waiver on Park Land Dedicate Fee be applicable to all three parcels or just to the remaining unfinished parcel? The last approval included underground parking for the BMR units for senior independent living. What will happen to the parking spaces promised for that project in the underground garage of the last approval? Thanks for clarifying these. Liang Liang Chao​​​​ Mayor 407 CC 05-06-2025 407 of 554 City Council LChao@cupertino.gov 408-777-3192 From: Danessa Techmanski <danessa@pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2025 11:57 AM To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.org> Subject: Project Changes At Westport Dear City Council, City Manager, and Planning Commission, I am writing you regarding the following project change proposal for the Westport development: M-2024-003, ASA-2024-003 Development Permit Amendment and Architectural & Site Approval to modify Building 1 toincrease the residential unit from 123 units to 136 units (an overall increase of 13 units),eliminate the basement-level parking garage, reduce the ground floor retail from ~12,000sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft., and a request to waive the Park Land Dedication Fee. For details,please see the 2024 Applications tab below. This proposal is under review. I find the request for these changes to the retirement development at Westport to be ludicrous on a number of levels including setting precedents for other developments within our city and also for their negative impact on our residents' quality of life. In terms of precedents, I think that we need to hold developers accountable to their development agreements in most cases. Allowing developers to go back on their word is like having no real plan at all. Additionally this allows developers to secure plan approvals that would otherwise not pass and then partially build while awaiting new housing bills that they can take advantage of in the future. Keep in mind bills like pending SB79 or any of the other housing bills that call for a reduction in parking. Ditto for reductions in park or other fees. It has become a game with developers being the only ones who are winning at this. 408 CC 05-06-2025 408 of 554 As for quality of life, this is wrong on so many levels. As our residential developments become denser and denser we need to rely on more public park spaces and their upgrades, Not less! The parking reduction is awful. Although Hopper works well for some it is too area restricted and inconvenient for many. How do you use Hopper when you want to load up or purchase large bulky items? What about multiple stops? How do you carpool and pick up friends? I carry many items that I use in my car and I can’t do that with Hopper either. I can only take it part way to many places and then I would have to figure out how to do the last miles and the first miles getting back to Hopper on my return. If people are forced to use Uber and Hopper that means double the trips as the rides come in and then leave after the return which doubles our traffic! We just don’t have the connected mass transit to support this. The proposed cut to retail is also horrible. We need to put something in place that ensures that retail that is removed from a site is reincorporated in any new development plans. Already we are losing so much retail space along Steven’s Creek where Staples and Panera and Voyager coffee are. Those places continue to be busy and will be sorely missed when they are gone. I hear of many residents really being tired of the inconvenience of having to drive farther and spend their tax dollars in other cities. I can’t believe that the original retail of 40,000 sq. ft. was reduced to 12,000 sq. ft. and now they want only 4,000 sq. ft?!!! This is right across from our busy De Anza College as well. Thank you sincerely, Danessa Techmanski 33-year Cupertino resident 409 CC 05-06-2025 409 of 554 From:Steve Lim To:Gian Martire Subject:Re: Westport Senior Community Center - important arguments for public hearing Date:Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:11:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Martire, I am a current resident and owner of a property at Arroyo Village, bordering onto the proposed Westport community, I am expressing my deepest concerns for the proposed changes and hope you can review these and take them into consideration. Key Concerns 1. Changes to the Original Agreement: The builder/owner made commitments to both city officials and residents to create a community that wouldn’t negatively impact Cupertino. However, the builder has since revised the plans to prioritize profit, disregarding the needs of future and nearby residents. 2. Traffic and Safety: The traffic and crosswalk conditions at Mary and Memorial Park are already hazardous. The new construction will worsen visibility for pedestrians, increasing the risk of accidents, especially for families and the elderly. Concerns Regarding the Builder’s Arguments Retail and Parking Issues: Retail Space Planning: The retail space in Building 1 has not been properly marketed, and the placement of benches limits its appeal to potential merchants. The lack of designated retail parking is a problem, with current spaces often filled and no additional parking available due to permit-only restrictions. Inadequate Resident Parking: The current proposal offers fewer than 30% of units with parking, which assumes an unrealistic number of residents won’t own cars. This will worsen parking problems for all. Unkept Promises to Residents: Existing residents were promised underground parking for the next phase, but this promise is no longer being honored. Senior Fee Concerns: Contradictory Arguments: The builder claims future residents can walk 0.5 miles to a “major public transit hub” but argues they can’t walk to the nearby park (less than 0.5 miles away). This inconsistency suggests an attempt to bypass the $4M agreement, which would impact residents and the city. Impact on Local Facilities: Current residents frequently use nearby amenities like the 410 CC 05-06-2025 410 of 554 park, senior center, and community center. The addition of more residents will strain these resources and increase trash and congestion. I kindly urge the city’s elected officials to carefully consider these issues before approving further changes proposed by the builder. The builder is prioritizing profit at the expense of the community’s well-being. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Steven Lim 411 CC 05-06-2025 411 of 554 March 7,2025 Gian Martire Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1 Dear Mr. Matire, I am a, long time, resident of the Casa De Anza Condominium complex on Mary Ave. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the March 11 meeting of the Planning Commission, to share my concerns about one modification for this project. I believe that the Planning Commission needs to carefully evaluate the impact of the elimination of the underground parking. From the drawings that are available, it looks like onsite, ground level, parking is inadequate to serve the needs of a project consisting of 135 dwelling units and 35 n on-residential memory care units. There appears to be only 40 or parking spaces. I would hope the Commission would ascertain the number of staff needing parking spaces during the day and evening and how many spaces would be available for visitors and outside medical staff visiting residents. From the early planning for the Westport projects, there were promises of underground parking. First, that was eliminated from the project #3 townhomes. There were still promises that there would be underground parking for the #2 and #1 projects. The #2 building developers, managed to talk the City into letting them eliminate the underground parking and now, the developer of the #1 building wants to eliminate underground parking, claiming that they could be allowed to eliminate it because it is close to a major transportation hub. A bus stop on Stevens Creek Blvd., in no way, constitutes a major transportation hub for the foreseeable future. There is another project planned for the west side of Mary Ave, to be called the Villa Apartments. This is to be a complex of 40 apartments, which will require restructuring the traffic lanes, downsizing the width of the bike lanes, eliminating parallel parking on the east side of Mary Ave. and replacing diagonal parking with parallel parking along the length of the Villa Apartments, resulting in a significant reduction of parking space along Mary Ave. In addition, the need for parking for Memorial Park visitors and events and Senior Center members is growing, as parking on Mary Ave is diminishing. For these reasons, the need for adequate parking within the building #1 property is imperative. I highly recommend that the #1 building project developers not be allowed to eliminate underground parking. Another concern is that the building #1 drawing, is very unclear, as to what the impact will be on west bound traffic on Stevens Creek Blvd. The drawings look as though the proposed bike lane and bus stop will reduce the number of west bound traffic lanes to two, on a portion of Stevens Creek Blvd., from Mary Ave to the highway 85 on ramp. Additional traffic coming out of Mary Ave added to that from De Anza College, as well as west bound traffic coming along Stevens Creek Blvd. and the relocation of the bus stop to the west side of the Mary Ave intersection, would l cause serious backups. I am copying this letter to the Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your attention to my concerns and I hope the Planning Commissioners have a chance to read the letter before the meeting on March 11. Sincerely, Jean Schwab 10353 Mary Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 jeanschwab@aol.com 412 CC 05-06-2025 412 of 554 From:Piu Ghosh (she/her) To:Luke Connolly; Lindsay Nelson; Gian Martire Subject:Fwd: Westport Project Changed Date:Thursday, April 17, 2025 6:32:19 PM Public comment for WP. Thanks! Piu Piu Ghosh (she/her)​​​​ Planning Manager Community Development PiuG@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3277 Begin forwarded message: From: Mahesh Gurikar <mgurikar@yahoo.com> Date: April 17, 2025 at 9:17:24 PM EDT To: lukec@cupettion.gov, "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.gov>, planningcomission@cupertino.org Subject: Westport Project Changed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Members of the Planning Commission, Westport’s proposal to reduce the retail space and eliminate underground parking Please do not allow the requested changes to the project. 4000 sq fr retail space is too small. One restaurant may take 4000 sft. We need several retail businesses here. May be it can be reduced to about 12000 Sft. If underground parking is eliminated, those vehicles compete for parking on Mary Avenue. Please recommend Westport stick to original plan approved. 413 CC 05-06-2025 413 of 554 Thank you, Mahesh Gurikar Resident of Cupertino 414 CC 05-06-2025 414 of 554 415 CC 05-06-2025 415 of 554 04/18 /2025 City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Via email (planning@cupertino.gov) Re: April 22, 2025 hearing, agenda item 4 Dear Planning Commission of Cupertino, We are pleased to submit this letter of support of the proposed Summerhill Homes project at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard. YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non -profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. The Summerhill Homes project will consist of 59 townhomes, which include 12 below market rate townhomes, on a site designated for residential development in the Cupertino Housing 2023- 2031 Housing Element. Summerhill’s proposal is consistent with the Heart of the City specific plan, the Cupertino General Plan, and local zoning ordinances. As your officials have already identified to California’s Department of Housing and Community Development that the site is appropriate for residen tial use and may contribute to the RHNA obligations, it is inarguably beneficial to public welfare that it be used for that purpose. California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s general plan 416 CC 05-06-2025 416 of 554 at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. I look forward to seeing this project approved and bought to realization to help change the tides of the housing crisis in the Bay Area. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY La w 417 CC 05-06-2025 417 of 554 From:Rafa Sonnenfeld To:Santosh Rao Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project Date:Friday, April 18, 2025 1:58:01 PM Attachments:Westport Cupertino letter of support.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Rao and Commissioners, Please find attached YIMBY Law's support letter for the above-referenced housing development project, which is being heard at your upcoming April 22nd meeting. Thank you, Rafa Sonnenfeld he/him Senior Manager Check out everything we achieved in 2024! 418 CC 05-06-2025 418 of 554 YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org April 18, 2025 Santosh Rao, Chair City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 srao@cupertino.org Re: Westport Cupertino Project Dear Chair Rao: YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Government Code Section 65589.5, also known as the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), and the Minimum Parking Requirements law, Government Code section 65863.2, commonly known as “AB 2097.” The Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws, including AB 2097, when evaluating the above-referenced project. We write this letter to express YIMBY Law’s deep concern about the City’s position in the staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project is not eligible to use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 cannot be applied retroactively. Simply put, there is no basis in the text of AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, the interpretation of AB2097 is plainly inconsistent with the expressed intent of AB2097 to reduce the cost of constructing housing. Taking the position that AB2097 cannot be applied to previously approved projects would also be inconsistent with State HCD guidance, including in a Technical Advisory published this past January. 419 CC 05-06-2025 419 of 554 YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org We encourage the Planning Commission to reject the staff report’s unsupported position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project and instead approve the project’s requested parking reduction under AB2097 I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law 420 CC 05-06-2025 420 of 554 From:Piu Ghosh (she/her) To:Lindsay Nelson Subject:Fwd: Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project Date:Friday, April 18, 2025 2:33:26 PM Attachments:Westport Cupertino letter of support.pdf Hi! Lindsay When you get comments re: agenda items, please make sure to forward to the project planner and Ben (if he doesn’t get PC emails). Thanks Piu Piu Ghosh (she/her)​​​​ Planning Manager Community Development PiuG@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3277 Begin forwarded message: From: Rafa Sonnenfeld <rafa@yimbylaw.org> Date: April 18, 2025 at 4:58:00 PM EDT To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.org> Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.gov> Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Westport Cupertino Project  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Rao and Commissioners, Please find attached YIMBY Law's support letter for the above-referenced housing development project, which is being heard at your upcoming April 22nd meeting. Thank you, Rafa Sonnenfeld he/him Senior Manager 421 CC 05-06-2025 421 of 554 Check out everything we achieved in 2024! 422 CC 05-06-2025 422 of 554 YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org April 18, 2025 Santosh Rao, Chair City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 srao@cupertino.org Re: Westport Cupertino Project Dear Chair Rao: YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Government Code Section 65589.5, also known as the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA"), and the Minimum Parking Requirements law, Government Code section 65863.2, commonly known as “AB 2097.” The Planning Commission has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws, including AB 2097, when evaluating the above-referenced project. We write this letter to express YIMBY Law’s deep concern about the City’s position in the staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project is not eligible to use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 cannot be applied retroactively. Simply put, there is no basis in the text of AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, the interpretation of AB2097 is plainly inconsistent with the expressed intent of AB2097 to reduce the cost of constructing housing. Taking the position that AB2097 cannot be applied to previously approved projects would also be inconsistent with State HCD guidance, including in a Technical Advisory published this past January. 423 CC 05-06-2025 423 of 554 YIMBY Law 2261 Market Street STE 10416 San Francisco, CA 94114 hello@yimbylaw.org We encourage the Planning Commission to reject the staff report’s unsupported position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project and instead approve the project’s requested parking reduction under AB2097 I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state. Sincerely, Sonja Trauss Executive Director YIMBY Law 424 CC 05-06-2025 424 of 554 From:Santosh Rao To:Lindsay Nelson; Luke Connolly Subject:Fw: [April 22 Planning Commission Hearing, Item #4] Letter regarding Westport Cupertino Project Use of AB2097 Date:Friday, April 18, 2025 6:23:50 PM Attachments:J Abrams Letter re Westport Building 1 Use of AB2097_041825.pdf Please include in written communications. Thank you. Santosh Rao​​​​ Chair, Planning Commission SRao@cupertino.gov From: Nicholas Roosevelt <nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:54 PM To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.org>; Tracy Kosolcharoen <Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov>; David Fung <dfung@cupertino.gov>; Seema Lindskog <slindskog@cupertino.gov>; Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.gov> Cc: James Abrams <jabrams@jabramslaw.com>; Simsik, Balint <Balint.Simsik@related.com>; Zak, Cascade <cascade.zak@related.com>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <piug@cupertino.gov>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.gov>; fandrews@awattorneys.com <fandrews@awattorneys.com> Subject: [April 22 Planning Commission Hearing, Item #4] Letter regarding Westport Cupertino Project Use of AB2097 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Rao and Commissioners— Attached please find a letter from the project sponsor of Item #4 on the Planning Commission’s agenda for next Tuesday, April 22 (Modifications to the Development Permit and Architectural & Site Approval for the Westport Development). The letter regards the project’s proposed use of the parking reduction measures provided for in AB2097. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Nick 425 CC 05-06-2025 425 of 554 ------------- Nick Roosevelt J. Abrams Law, P.C. 538 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com Cell: (504)-717-9251 ______________________________ This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 426 CC 05-06-2025 426 of 554 1 J. ABRAMS LAW, P.C. 538 Hayes Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Nick Roosevelt nroosevelt@jabramslaw.com VIA E-EMAIL April 18, 2025 Santosh Rao Chair City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 srao@cupertino.org Re: Westport Cupertino Project, Building 1 Dear Chair Rao and Commissioners: This firm represents the project sponsor of the “Building 1” development (“Building 1”) within the Westport Cupertino project (the “Project”). The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear proposed modifications to the Project on April 22, 2025. We were surprised and disappointed to read the staff report published on April 17, in which the City states that the Project is ineligible to utilize a state law (AB2097) intended to make housing more feasible to construct by reducing residential parking requirements. The staff report simply states without justification that “AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to this previously entitled project.” This conclusion is surprising, partially because the Project’s application was filed nearly one year ago, the law was adopted prior to such application, and the sponsor has been consistently working with the City since that time. As reflected in the staff report, the sponsor team is open to continuing to work with Planning staff on a design solution to add approximately 19 spaces to the Project’s surface parking lot if that is what it will take for the City to expediently approve the proposed design modifications to Building 1. However, we respectfully submit to the Planning Commission and City that its position that AB2097 cannot apply to the Project is inconsistent with: (1) the text of AB2097, (2) well established principles of statutory interpretation, (3) technical guidance published by State HCD, (4) technical assistance provided to the City of Los Angeles, and (5) the well-established AB2097 implementation program in the City of Los Angeles. As such, we respectfully request the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Project’s proposed parking modifications as originally submitted (a total of 73 surface parking spaces with no basement parking) and without conditioning its recommendation on the provision of additional surface parking that would be inconsistent with applicable state law. 427 CC 05-06-2025 427 of 554 2 Background The application for the proposed modifications to Building 1 was submitted June 17, 2024 and accepted by Planning staff as complete on October 31, 2024. As detailed in the staff report, the application requests five modifications: • Increase the approved senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units, which is within the permitted density bonus for the Westport Cupertino project; • Reduce the total amount of proposed parking by eliminating the basement-level parking garage pursuant to AB2097, which allows for the elimination of parking requirements for projects within a half-mile of a major transit stop, such as the bus stop at Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard;1 • Utilize an available state density bonus concession to reduce otherwise required ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet; • Make minor adjustments to the design of Building 1 that will reduce its height and decrease its overall square footage; and • Waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee. We generally refer the Commission to the Staff Report and our June 18, 2024 letter included in the agenda package for the April 22 hearing for further detail and justification for the requested modifications unrelated to AB2097. The application was initially noticed for a hearing before the Planning Commission on February 25, 2025, then successively rescheduled to March 11, March 25, and then April 22 based on varying justifications including errors in required public noticing, onboarding of new staff, and the need for further time for City decisionmakers to understand the state laws being invoked as part of the proposed modifications. On the same day the project sponsor was informed on April 10 that the hearing would actually proceed on April 22, we were verbally informed that the City might take the position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Project because it cannot be applied retroactively to already approved projects. For the following reasons, we respectfully submit this interpretation of AB2097 is not supportable. 1 We note that previous approvals for the Westport Cupertino project, Staff Report, and the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 all make clear that there is no dispute that the Project is located within a half-mile of a major transit stop as required by AB2097. See, e.g., Staff Report p. 8 and Addendum p. 4-23. 428 CC 05-06-2025 428 of 554 3 Nothing in AB2097 Says It Only Applies to Wholly “New” Projects Simply stated, there is no language in AB2097 stating that it only applies to projects approved after its effective date of January 1, 2023. However, the law is clear about which types of previously approved projects are disqualified. Disqualified projects are those that: [eliminate] commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. See Govt. Code § 65863.2(h)(1). Through this clause, the authors of the legislation identified which projects are disqualified. The authors did not include previously approved projects in this list. It is a well-established principle of California statutory interpretation that the reader may not insert language, nor ignore language which has been inserted. See Harbor Fumigation, Inc. v. County of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist., 43 Cal.App.4th 854, 860 (1996). Here, the City’s position that AB2097 cannot apply retroactively to the Project depends on a broad prohibition on retroactive use that simply is not in the text of the law, while ignoring text that conversely supports there is no such broad prohibition on retroactive use of the law and that the clear intent of the law is to allow projects (particularly housing projects) to reduce their cost of construction, subject to narrow exceptions. More specifically, AB2097 states that the “Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions” and that “[t]herefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.” See Govt. Code § 65863.2(i). This clause does not say the intent of AB2097 is to prohibit the imposition of parking requirements moving forward, it instead clearly and broadly expresses the intent of the state legislature to prohibit the imposition of parking requirements for all projects within a half mile of a major transit stop. AB2097 also provides that cities may impose EV and ADA parking requirements to “new” multifamily residential or nonresidential development. See Govt. Code § 65863.2(f). That is, in addition to setting forth the limited circumstances where an otherwise eligible project can be disqualified from using AB2097, the state legislature also clearly provides the certain instances where “new” projects can be subject to certain parking requirements. In other words, AB2097 addresses both retroactive and prospective application of the law for certain types of projects, but does not broadly prohibit retroactive use of the law, certainly not for an approved housing development like this Project. State HCD Guidance Makes Clear that AB2097 Can Apply to Existing Uses Included as Attachment 1 to this letter is a Technical Advisory published by State HCD this past January which clearly states that AB2097: (1) can apply to existing buildings or structures; and (2) can be used to eliminate existing parking agreements with a public agency that were executed before January 1, 2023. See highlighted text on page 6. 429 CC 05-06-2025 429 of 554 4 State HCD Has Issued Technical Assistance Letters for a Project in Los Angeles Proposing to Invoke AB2097 After Initially Being Approved With a Parking Requirement Included as Attachment 2 are two letters issued by State HCD to the City of Los Angeles where the underlying project facts make clear that the project in question was approved with a parking requirement and thereafter proposed to eliminate it using AB2097. See highlighted text on page 2 of the March 28, 2024 letter and page 1 of the November 17, 2023 letter. Well Established AB2097 Implementation Policy in Los Angeles Supports Applicability of AB2097 to Previously Approved Projects Including as Attachment 3 is City of Los Angeles Inter-Departmental Memo regarding Implementation of AB 2097 provided detailed guidance on the City’s implementation of law and clearly setting forth the City’s position that AB2097 applies to previously approved projects seeking to amend their entitlements to invoke AB2097. See page 5. Conclusion For the reasons above, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reconsider the position regarding AB2097 in the Staff Report and recommend approval of the sponsor’s proposed modification to the Project’s parking proposal as proposed (utilizing AB2097). We emphasize that project sponsor is not proposing the parking modifications on a whim (nor is it proposing to entirely eliminate parking as it is entitled to under AB2097), but instead is pursuing the modification in a tailored effort to make the construction of Building 1 financeable in a manner that will deliver new housing consistent with the City’s Housing Element and state law. Sincerely, Nick Roosevelt CC: Piu Ghosh Planning Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 piug@cupertino.gov Gian Martire Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 GianM@cupertino.org Floy Andrews City Attorney City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 fandrews@awattorneys.com 430 CC 05-06-2025 430 of 554 5 ATTACHMENT 1 State HCD Technical Advisory on AB2097 431 CC 05-06-2025 431 of 554 California Department of Housing and Community Development TECHNICAL ADVISORY On the Implementation of AB 2097, Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements (Statutes of 2022) Housing Policy Development Division January 2025 432 CC 05-06-2025 432 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 2 of 11 Contents Section 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2 Section 2. Key Provisions of AB 2097 ............................................................................. 3 Section 3. Project Site Eligibility ...................................................................................... 4 Section 4. Determining AB 2097 Eligibility ....................................................................... 5 Section 5. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) .............................................................. 5  Voluntary and Required Parking .......................................................................... 5  Project Eligibility ................................................................................................... 6  Major Transit Stop Eligibility ................................................................................. 6  Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) .................................................................... 7  Transit Service Frequency ................................................................................... 7 Section 6. Recommended Methodologies ....................................................................... 8  Peak Morning and Afternoon Commute Periods .................................................. 8  Peak Period Bus Service Interval Frequency ....................................................... 9  Intersections of Two or More Major Bus Routes .................................................. 9  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations ........................................................................ 9 Section 7. Links to Other State Resources ...................................................................... 9 Section 8. AB 2097 Statute (Government Code Section 65863.2) ................................ 10 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION On September 22, 2022, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022), which aims to promote more affordable housing solutions and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing mandatory parking minimums within one-half mile of major transit stops (with some exceptions) and addressing excess parking spaces that drive up costs. This law took effect on January 1, 2023. On September 19, 2024, Governor Newsom strengthened these efforts by signing AB 2553 (Chapter 275, Statutes of 2024), which expands the definition of “major transit stop” by increasing the frequency of bus service intervals to 20 minutes or less during peak periods. This portion of the law takes effect January 1, 2025. In combination, AB 2097 empowers developers and communities to prioritize housing and other development projects near transit hubs, which supports more sustainable and connected communities while addressing California’s critical housing and climate challenges. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has authority to enforce AB 2097 pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j)(12). This technical advisory provides guidance and considerations regarding implementation of AB 2097. 433 CC 05-06-2025 433 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 3 of 11 SECTION 2. KEY PROVISIONS OF AB 2097 The applicable statutory citations that define the provisions of AB 2097 can be found in the following sections of the Government and Public Resources Codes. AB 2097 Statute 1 A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on eligible residential, commercial, or other development projects located within one-half mile of public transit. Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a) 2 “Public transit” means a “major transit stop” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21155. Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(5) 3 “Major transit stop” is defined in Public Resources Code section 21064.3. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units, or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop. Major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan also qualify. Pub. Res. Code, § 21155, subd. (b) 4 “Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following: (a) Existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) Ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) Intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.3 5 (a) “Bus rapid transit” means a public mass transit service provided by a public agency or by a public private partnership that includes all the following features: (1) Full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (2) Transit signal priority. (3) All-door boarding. (4) Fare collection system that promotes efficiency. (5) Defined stations. (b) “Bus rapid transit station” means a clearly defined bus station served by a bus rapid transit. Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.2 6 The “applicable regional transportation plan” is prepared by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) as part of the organization’s sustainable communities strategy. There are 18 MPOs throughout the state of California. Pub. Res. Code, § 21155, subd. (a) 434 CC 05-06-2025 434 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 4 of 11 SECTION 3. PROJECT SITE ELIGIBILITY Whether AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing minimum parking requirements on a development project depends on the proposed land use or whether there is a commercial parking agreement in place. For residential projects, the applicability of AB 2097 depends on the type of proposed housing, total number of housing units, and proposed affordability mix. Table 1. Project Site Eligibility AB 2097 prohibition on minimum parking requirements… Does not apply to the following uses or circumstances   Event centers.1  Hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging.2  Commercial parking in a contractual agreement with a public agency, executed before January 1, 2023.3 Applies without exceptions to the following uses   Development containing fewer than 20 housing units.4  Affordable, senior, student, or special needs housing, where at least 20 percent of the total number of units are dedicated to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities.5  Developments subject to other state law parking reductions.6 Applies with exceptions* to the following uses   Other residential-only developments.7  Other mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use.7  Transitional or supportive housing.7  Commercial and other developments.8  Residential hotels, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50519.2 *EXCEPTIONS. A local public agency can make written findings—supported by a preponderance of evidence—within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application that having no minimum parking requirements would have a substantially negative impact on any of the following:  Regional Housing Needs. The local jurisdiction’s ability to meet its share of the regional housing need for low- and very low-income households.9  Special Housing Needs. The local jurisdiction’s ability to meet housing needs for elderly or persons with disabilities as identified in Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(7).10  Existing Residential or Commercial Parking. Within 0.5 mile of the development project.11 1 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (d). 2 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(6). 3 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (h)(1). 4 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(2). 5 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(1). 6 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (c)(3). 7 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(1). 8 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a). 9 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(1). 10 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(2). 11 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b)(3). 435 CC 05-06-2025 435 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 5 of 11 SECTION 4. DETERMINING AB 2097 ELIGIBILITY Does the project include an event center or transient lodging (e.g., hotel, motel, bed and breakfast)? No. Is the project located within one-half mile of a major transit stop in the applicable Regional Transportation Plan? Yes. A public agency may impose min. automobile parking requirements. No. Is the project within one-half mile of a major transit stop as defined in PRC § 21064.3? Yes. Eligible for AB 2097, possibly with exceptions (see Section 3). Yes. Eligible for AB 2097, possibly with exceptions (see Section 3). No. A public agency may impose min. automobile parking requirements SECTION 5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)  Voluntary and Required Parking 1. Can a public agency still require parking in certain circumstances? Yes, but only in limited situations and only for certain types of projects – see Section 3 (Project Site Eligibility).12 2. Is voluntary parking allowed? Yes. AB 2097 prohibits minimum required parking for qualifying projects but does not impose a maximum parking standard. An applicant may choose to add parking even if they qualify for a full parking exemption under state law, although local jurisdictions may impose a maximum parking requirement. A public agency may require voluntary parking spaces be used for car share vehicles, be made publicly available (e.g., not assigned to a specific use or business), or be charged a parking fee, but cannot require that any voluntary parking is free of charge to residents.13 12 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (b). 13 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (g). 3. Does AB 2097 apply to commercial or other non-residential development? Yes. AB 2097’s prohibition on minimum parking requirements also extends to commercial, industrial, and other non- residential land uses – with exceptions. See Section 3 (Project Site Eligibility).14 4. Can a public agency still require accessible or electric vehicle (EV) parking? Yes, a public agency can still require the same percentage or number of accessible and EV parking spaces as would have otherwise applied if AB 2097 did not apply, based on local and state requirements. AB 2097 does not change (i.e., reduce, eliminate, or preclude enforcement of) the minimum parking requirement for spaces that are accessible for persons with disabilities or provide charging equipment for EVs.15 14 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a). 15 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (f). 436 CC 05-06-2025 436 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 6 of 11 A public agency should be aware that it may eliminate local parking standard requirements and nonetheless require accessible and EV parking, for example, calculated as a percentage of provided parking. 5.Can a public agency still require bicycle parking? A public agency may require and enforce bicycle parking. AB 2097 applies solely to automobile parking requirements.16  Project Eligibility 6.Does AB 2097 only apply to new “ground-up” development projects? No. In addition to new construction, AB 2097 also applies to changes of use in existing buildings or structures, including the creation or expansion of qualifying uses. See Section 3 above for Project Site Eligibility. 7.Which public agencies does AB 2097 apply to? What about the coastal zone? AB 2097 defines “public agency” to mean the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision.17 AB 2097 applies to public agencies, which includes the Coastal Commission. See memo by the California Coastal Commission, dated June 30, 2023. 8.Can AB 2097 be used to eliminate an existing parking agreement? Yes, with the exception of contractual commercial parking agreements with a public agency that were executed before January 1, 2023.18  Major Transit Stop Eligibility 9.How is the “within one-half mile” distance measured for AB 2097? The distance to a major transit stop is measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the proposed project to any point on the parcel or parcels that make up the property upon which a major transit stop is located. See HCD Technical Assistance Letter to the City of San Clemente, dated November 17, 2023. Note: other statutes may measure distance from transit differently from AB 2097. 16 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (a). 17 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (e)(4). 18 Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (h)(1). 10.Does any type of existing rail station qualify as a major transit stop? Any existing rail station – including those without facilities, that are unstaffed or have infrequent or limited service – automatically qualifies as a major transit stop.19 11.What is the difference between “major transit stop” and “high quality transit corridor?” A “high quality transit corridor” is generally more expansive compared to “major transit stop.” A “high quality transit corridor” is a bus corridor with a fixed-route and service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.20 A major transit stop identifies a point, parcel, or intersection. 19 Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.3, subd. (a). 20 Pub. Res. Code, § 21155, subd. (b) 437 CC 05-06-2025 437 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 7 of 11 AB 2097 specifies a site’s relationship to a “major transit stop” and not a “high quality transit corridor.” 12. What type of ferry terminal qualifies as a major transit stop for AB 2097? A ferry terminal qualifies as a major transit stop if it is served by either a bus or rail transit service.21  Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 13. What if a location is a “major transit stop” in the current RTP, but does not meet any criteria in Public Resources Code section 21064.3 as a “major transit stop”? A major transit stop that is included in the applicable RTP qualifies nearby sites for the purposes of AB 2097.22 The statute does not distinguish between existing and planned major transit stops, nor future changes or improvements. A site that qualifies based on its proximity to a major transit stop that is included in the RTP does not need to meet any criteria in Public Resources Code section 21064.3. See HCD Technical Assistance Letters to the City of Los Angeles, dated November 17, 2023 and March 28, 2024. 14. What if the current RTP identifies a major transit stop that no longer meets any criteria in Public Resources Code section 21064.3? The RTP remains in effect and binding for AB 2097 eligibility during its applicable time period, including if a major transit stop no longer meets the criteria in Public Resources Code section 21064.3.22  Transit Service Frequency 15. Can different bus routes be combined for calculating service frequency? No, except for “colinear line families” (see Question 16). For the purposes of AB 2097, a major transit stop must have two or more bus routes present, and each route must stop at the intersection with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during peak morning and afternoon commute periods. See Section 6 (Peak Period Bus Service Interval Frequency) for HCD recommendation on calculating interval frequency. 16. Can a local and rapid or express bus line schedule be combined for calculating service frequency? For purposes of applying AB 2097, “colinear line families” (i.e., bus routes that share the same route, such as local and rapid lines) 21 Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.3, subd. (b). are combined and considered as one service route for service frequency. A line family that creates a loop (e.g., clockwise and counterclockwise service) is also considered one route for service frequency, even if each direction has a unique route number. Line families are intended to function as one bus route, where transit riders typically board the first bus available whether it is a local or rapid/express line, or whether the route loops. Only the intersections where the buses stop with a frequency interval of 20 minutes or less during morning and afternoon peak periods may qualify as major transit stops. Note: to qualify as an intersection of two or more major bus routes, a colinear line family must intersect with another qualifying major bus route that is not part of the line family. See HCD Technical Assistance Letter to the City of Los Angeles, dated March 8, 2024. 22 Pub. Res. Code, § 21155, subd. (b). 438 CC 05-06-2025 438 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 8 of 11 17. Can different bus routes be combined to calculate frequency for the portion of a shared route (“trunk line”) but calculated separately where the routes are split? Aside from colinear line families (see Question 16), each bus route is individually assessed for frequency, including unique bus lines that share the same course for a portion of their route. SECTION 6. RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGIES HCD presents the following recommendations to assist local agencies in their implementation of AB 2097. These recommendations, while not required, are intended to facilitate consistent implementation of the law. HCD acknowledges there are certain methodological details absent from the law for which local agencies must necessarily “fill in the gaps” to process development applications. The recommendations in this section are intended to reduce barriers to development due to required parking minimums.  Peak Morning and Afternoon Commute Periods Where available, HCD recommends public agencies refer to the peak hours in their applicable RTP to account for regional variability. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies a threshold bus service interval of 20 minutes or less “during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods” but does not indicate definitive ranges of time. The most commonly identified peak hours from a sampling of MPOs and their RTPs were 6:00 to 9:00 am and 3:00 to 7:00 pm (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1. Sampling of MPO Peak Morning and Afternoon Peak Commute Periods (2024) Morning (AM) Afternoon (PM) MPO 23 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 AMBAG BCAG Fresno COG Kern COG MTC SACOG SANDAG SBCAG SCAG Tahoe RPA TCAG 23 For a full list of MPOs, see https://calcog.org/our-members. 439 CC 05-06-2025 439 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 9 of 11  Peak Period Bus Service Interval Frequency HCD recommends averaging bus service intervals across the combined morning and afternoon peak periods for the purposes of maximizing housing production potential and to account for peak-directional service (e.g., more frequent inbound morning service). The average frequency must be 20 minutes or less across both peak periods. In other words, two or more bus routes must stop at a given location at least 21 times in a seven-hour period to qualify for AB 2097 prohibition on minimum parking requirements. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies a statutory threshold of “two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less” during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods but does not provide a methodology for calculating peak frequency.  Intersections of Two or More Major Bus Routes HCD recommends that a location or parcel should be considered within one-half mile of a major transit stop if it is served by two or more major bus routes that are within 500 feet of each other (about 0.1 mile) measured in a straight line. Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (c) identifies an “intersection of two or more major bus routes” as one criterion that may qualify as a major transit stop, but the statute does not provide a definition of “intersection.” Based on feedback from MPOs and Caltrans, acceptable distances for a passenger to transfer between transit routes on foot range between 150 feet and 500 feet. Therefore, any two or more unique bus routes that stop within 500 feet walking proximity to one another would be considered “intersecting.” See Section 5, Question 9 for measurement of one-half mile distance.  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations HCD recommends that a BRT station may qualify as a major transit stop if the station itself is adjacent to a full-time dedicated transit lane, since AB 2097 is based on distance from a major transit stop as opposed to a corridor. Public Resources Code section 21064.2, subdivision (a) defines “major transit stop” to include a site that contains an existing BRT station, which in turn is defined as a bus station served by BRT.24 In addition to frequent peak service intervals, transit signal priority, and other boarding features, BRT is considered a faster bus-based system because the service includes operation in a full-time dedicated bus lane or separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation.25 However, the statute does not indicate whether the entirety of the BRT route, a majority portion of the BRT route, or just the station itself must be within or adjacent to a separate lane from other vehicular traffic. SECTION 7. LINKS TO OTHER STATE RESOURCES Please note that the CEQA Site Check map uses Caltrans data, which is updated regularly and may vary in methodology from those recommended in Section 6 above.  California Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI). CEQA Site Check Map. Layer: Existing Major Transit Stops per Public Resources Code sections 21155 and 21064.3. https://sitecheck.opr.ca.gov/ 24 Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.2, subd. (b). 25 Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.2, subd. (a). 440 CC 05-06-2025 440 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 10 of 11  Caltrans. High Quality Transit Stops Online Map, Layer: “Major Transit Stop.” https://data.ca.gov/dataset/ca-hq-transit-stops  California Coastal Commission AB 2097 Memorandum. https://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcp/mrfcj/housing.html SECTION 8. AB 2097 STATUTE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65863.2) 65863.2. (a) A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a city, county, or city and county may impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a project that is located within one-half mile of public transit if the public agency makes written findings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on any of the following: (1) The city’s, county’s, or city and county’s ability to meet its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 for low- and very low income households. (2) The city’s, county’s, or city and county’s ability to meet any special housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities identified in the analysis required pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (3) Existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project. (c) For a housing development project, subdivision (b) shall not apply if the housing development project satisfies any of the following: (1) The development dedicates a minimum of 20 percent of the total number of housing units to very low, low-, or moderate-income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. (2) The development contains fewer than 20 housing units. (3) The development is subject to parking reductions based on the provisions of any other applicable law. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an event center shall provide parking, as required by local ordinance, for employees and other workers. (e) For purposes of this section: (1) “Housing development project” means a housing development project as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5. (2) “Low- and very low-income households” means the same as “lower income households” as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) “Moderate-income households” means the same as “persons and families of moderate income,” as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. 441 CC 05-06-2025 441 of 554 AB 2097 Technical Advisory | Page 11 of 11 (4) “Public agency” means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, including charter cities, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision. (5) “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. (6) “Project” does not include a project where any portion is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except where a portion of a housing development project is designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (f) This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development that is located within one-half mile of public transit to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply. (g) When a project provides parking voluntarily, a public agency may impose requirements on that voluntary parking to require spaces for car share vehicles, require spaces to be shared with the public, or require parking owners to charge for parking. A public agency may not require that voluntarily provided parking is provided to residents free of charge. (h) (1) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. This subdivision shall apply to an existing contractual agreement that is amended after January 1, 2023, provided that the amendments do not increase commercial parking requirements. (2) A project may voluntarily build additional parking that is not shared with the public. (i) The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section. 442 CC 05-06-2025 442 of 554 6 ATTACHMENT 2 State HCD Technical Assistance Letters to Los Angeles 443 CC 05-06-2025 443 of 554 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov March 28, 2024 Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning City of Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street, Suite 525 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Lisa Webber: RE: Los Angeles AB 2097 Implementation – 12124 Pacific Avenue – Letter of Technical Assistance Thank you for providing clarification on the circumstances surrounding the proposed project at 12124 Pacific Avenue (Project). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) previously provided a Letter of Technical Assistance relating to this Project on November 17, 2023 (attached). The purpose of this letter is to expand upon the technical assistance provided in the previous letter. As you are aware, Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21155, subdivision (b) – which serves as the basis for the definition of public transit in Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022) – defines major transit stops as equivalent to those in PRC section 21064.3, “except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan” (emphasis added). This indicates that any major transit stop that is identified in a regional transportation plan (RTP) can and should serve to qualify nearby sites for the purposes of AB 2097. The law does not distinguish between planned and existing major transit stops, or indeed place any qualifiers on the major transit stops other than their “inclusion” within the RTP. Therefore, a site that qualifies on the basis of its proximity to a major transit stop that is included in the RTP does not need to meet the 15-minute qualification standard of PRC section 21064.3, nor should it be evaluated for that purpose. In the context of the Project, the Venice Boulevard/Centinela Avenue stop is shown in (i.e., is “included in”) the 2020 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan.1 SCAG staff has confirmed that this stop qualified as a planned major transit stop for the 2020 plan based on the methodology employed at the 1 Page 75 of the Connect SoCal 2020 Transit Technical Report. Connect SoCal 2020 is the current RTP for the SCAG region and will remain in effect until it is next updated. 444 CC 05-06-2025 444 of 554 Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning Page 2 time of its adoption. This stop is therefore currently considered a major transit stop for the purposes of AB 2097. During a meeting between HCD and the City on February 27, 2024, City staff explained that the City is hesitant to process the Project application because it is currently updating/syncing various other local programs that rely on designated transit stops to establish project eligibility. In consultation with SCAG, the City is studying various methodologies that can be used to identify and categorize transit stops. While HCD recognizes the importance of these long-range planning efforts, they do not constitute a legal basis to deny the Project applicant the benefits of AB 2097 to which they are entitled. The City must confirm the applicant’s eligibility under the law in writing and without further delay. HCD remains committed to supporting the City of Los Angeles in implementing state law and hopes the City finds this clarification helpful. HCD would also like to remind the City that HCD has enforcement authority over AB 2097, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions and inactions to determine consistency with these laws. If HCD finds that a city’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of state law (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).) If you have questions or need additional information, please contact David Ying at david.ying@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Shannan West Housing Accountability Unit Chief Enclosure: Letter of Technical Assistance RE: Los Angeles AB 2097 Implementation, November 17, 2023 445 CC 05-06-2025 445 of 554 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov November 17, 2023 Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning City of Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street, Suite 525 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Lisa Webber: RE: Los Angeles AB 2097 Eligibility – Letter of Technical Assistance HCD received a request for technical assistance from Jeffer Mangles Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM) on September 27, 2023, regarding the application of Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 (Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022). AB 2097 limits the ability of a public agency to impose minimum automobile parking requirements for residential, commercial, or other qualifying development projects if they are located within one-half mile of public transit, as defined. The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance for the benefit of both the City of Los Angeles (City) and JMBM. Project Description and Background HCD understands that the proposed Project,1 located at 12124 Pacific Avenue, would provide 74 housing units, including 11 units affordable to very low-income households. The Project application, which was submitted on November 10, 2022, was approved by the City Planning Commission on August 23, 2023. After the Project was approved, the applicant became aware of the provisions of Government Code section 65863.2 (i.e., AB 2097). The applicant currently seeks to use this statute as a basis to terminate an existing parking covenant on the property. In email discussions that HCD has reviewed, the City has taken the position that the Project is not eligible under AB 2097 because it relies on a planned transit stop, rather than an existing transit stop, to establish eligibility under the law. The City does not dispute that the project site is located within one-half mile of the planned Venice Boulevard/Centinela Avenue major transit stop, as shown in the regional transit plan (RTP) adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 1 City permit number CPC-2022-8256-CU-DB-PHP-HCA 446 CC 05-06-2025 446 of 554 Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning Page 2 Interpretation of AB 2097 Government Code section 65863.2 requires that eligible projects be located within 0.5 miles of “public transit” to qualify for the parking exemption. “Public transit,” in this instance, means a “major transit stop” as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. The definition of “major transit stop” referenced in Public Resources Code section 21155, subdivision (b), provides the following: “A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan.” (Emphasis added) Finally, Public Resources Code section 21064.3 defines a major transit stop per the following: “Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. (Emphasis added) Therefore, the question at hand is: Can a planned “major transit stop,” as identified in an RTP, serve to qualify a site for a parking exemption pursuant to AB 2097, despite the fact that bus service frequency interval cannot yet be observed and therefore verified? The answer is “yes,” for the following reasons. First, Public Resources Code section 21155, subdivision (b), does not condition the eligibility of planned major transit stops on their current existence. The statute only specifies that the stops be “included” in the applicable region’s RTP (in this case, SCAG’s). It is presumed that planning documents, by their very nature, will anticipate future infrastructure and conditions that do not yet exist. Second, it is reasonable to assume that by referencing Public Resources Code section 21155, subdivision (b), the Legislature intended for the law to include both current and planned major transit stops. Had the Legislature intended for the parking exemption to apply only to major transit stops that currently exist, it could have defined applicability using only Public Resources Code section 21064.3. 447 CC 05-06-2025 447 of 554 Lisa Webber, AICP, Deputy Director of Project Planning Page 3 Conclusion In summary, HCD finds that the project is within the one-half mile radius of a major transit stop and therefore meets the basic eligibility requirements for a parking exemption under AB 2097. HCD remains committed to supporting the City of Los Angeles in achieving planning objectives and hopes the City finds this clarification helpful. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact David Ying at david.ying@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Shannan West Housing Accountability Unit Chief 448 CC 05-06-2025 448 of 554 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Los Angeles Memorandum Regarding AB2097 Implementation 449 CC 05-06-2025 449 of 554 FORM GEN. 160 (Rev. 6-80) CITY OF LOS ANGELES INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE: October 23, 2023 TO: Interested Parties Department of City Planning Staff FROM: Vincent P. Bertoni, AICP Director of Planning Department of City Planning Osama Younan, P.E. General Manager Department of Building and Safety SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF AB 2097 (2022) On September 22, 2022, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which added Government Code Section (§) 65863.2. AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop, with minor exceptions detailed below. A development project, for purposes of this bill, includes any project requiring a discretionary entitlement or building permit to allow the construction, reconstruction, alteration, addition, or change of use of a structure or land. This updated memorandum supersedes the memorandum dated December 29, 2022 and will serve as guidance for staff and project applicants on the implementation of AB 2097 for discretionary and ministerial projects until the time this memo is superseded. Staff and interested parties are encouraged to refer to state law in Government Code §65863.2 for additional information as this memo is not exhaustive. AB 2097 Eligibility and Restrictions AB 2097 prohibits a public agency from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements on most types of development within half a mile of a major transit stop. AB 2097 specifies that the parking reductions in this bill do not apply to projects that designate (i.e., create or expand) any portion of the project as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn or other transient lodging use, or reduce parking spaces designated for this use. A residential hotel as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code is not considered transient lodging and can use AB 2097. Furthermore the parking reductions do not apply to employee parking for an event center, or publicly accessible commercial parking, that is not obligated to specific use, in a contractual agreement with a public agency executed before January 1, 2023. In addition, a public agency has the option to impose minimum parking requirements if it can make written findings within 30 days of receipt of a completed application (e.g., a complete application for an entitlement was filed and fees were paid to DCP) for a discretionary development project. These findings may not be made against the following housing development projects that: o.y. 450 CC 05-06-2025 450 of 554 2 • Include a minimum of 20 percent of the total dwelling units for very low, low, or moderate income households, students, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. • Contain fewer than 20 dwelling units. • Are subject to parking reductions of any other applicable law (by satisfying the applicable eligibility requirements). Any public agency findings to impose parking minimums must be supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record, showing that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, on any of the following: 1. The City’s ability to meet its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for low and very low income households. 2. The City’s ability to meet any special housing needs for the elderly or persons with disabilities. 3. Existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project (defined in Govt. Code Sec. 65589.5). As part of the implementation of AB 2097, the Department of City Planning will be collecting data during the first year of implementation of the statute, and will be evaluating whether invoking either of the two housing-related findings is appropriate after such time. This will include tracking the number of projects utilizing the parking relief, the number of affordable and senior/disabled units proposed, as well as the utilization of affordable housing incentive programs. This data is critical to determine the impacts of the legislation on affordable and special needs housing production as well as to gather the data needed to determine whether or not the City sees evidence and a future rationale to invoke the exception findings related to housing production for the City’s share of RHNA numbers or special needs housing. The utilization of these findings will be based on the information collected by the City and be based on the development trends shown by this data and other City collected housing production data. In regards to the general finding that a project may create substantial negative impacts on “existing residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project,” members of the public and other interested parties may submit evidence to the record within 25 days of the project being accepted by the Department (the earlier the better) by emailing planning.ab2097@lacity.org, with the subject line including “Evidence” followed by the project case number, or if not available the street address of the project. Evidence submitted by the general public will only be considered for discretionary development projects processed by the Department of City Planning and will be considered alongside other citywide policy priorities around equity, housing, mobility and sustainability, as well as opportunities for other mitigation strategies and the state legislative intent. The intent of the bill, as described in § 65863.2(i) states: (i) The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section. A parking study must be provided by the public or other interested parties as part of the evidence of a parking impact for a given project. The parking impact evidence must conform to the following industry standards utilized by LADOT for review of a parking study or analysis. To provide a complete picture of overall usage and whether a consistent parking impact is present, the analysis should include the total amount of parking supply within the study area using the following parameters: 451 CC 05-06-2025 451 of 554 3 • Parking Study Area o Minimum radius of 1,000 feet or two city blocks, whichever is greater, around the project o The study area should be enlarged proportionally to the size of the project • Parking Inventory o Counts of both on-street and off-street parking spaces o Counts of both public and restricted parking spaces • Parking Duration o Monitor occupancy at three 4-hour intervals between 8am and 8pm on both weekends and weekdays o Record both occupancy duration and turnover of parking spaces during intervals • Parking Analysis o Areas with more than 85% utilization throughout the day should be highlighted o Mitigation measures should be recommended Parking studies should be reviewed and stamped by a licensed traffic engineer, though they are not required to be completed by one. LADOT will determine whether evidence for parking impacts exists, in collaboration with the Department of City Planning. Substantial negative impacts will be weighed alongside potentially positive impacts on a variety of citywide policy priorities, as well as individual circumstances. Any findings under section 65863.2(b) must be made in writing within 30 days of a completed application and supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record. In line with state and local objectives, such as reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) policy goals as well as housing equity goals, projects located in the following areas will be accorded substantial consideration against imposing or enforcing parking minimum standards on these projects: 1. Projects located within one-half mile of a fixed rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) line 2. Projects located in high and highest resource areas in the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Maps Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) and Disabled Access Parking Spaces Government Code Section 65863.2(f) of the law states that AB 2097 does not invalidate any otherwise applicable requirements regarding the provision of electric vehicle (EV) supply and charging equipment installed in parking spaces or to provide parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities. The EV requirements are stated in the LAMC section beginning with Section 99.04.106.4.2 and Disabled Access requirements are found in Chapter 11A or 11B of the Los Angeles Building Code (LABC). Since EV and Disabled Access requirements apply to parking spaces otherwise "provided" by the development project, if any parking spaces are voluntarily provided, EV and Disabled Access standards should be complied with when applicable. Additional Standards for Voluntarily Provided Vehicle Parking When a project provides parking voluntarily, the state law specifies that the City may impose certain other applicable requirements, including that the voluntary parking require spaces for car share vehicles, require spaces to be shared with the public (e.g., not obligated to a specific use or business), or require parking owners to charge for parking. A public agency may not require that voluntarily provided parking is provided to residents free of charge. 452 CC 05-06-2025 452 of 554 4 If parking is not required but voluntarily provided, AB 2097 does not preclude the application of standards relating to accessing those spaces, their size, design and similar standards designed to ensure safety. (e.g. LAMC Section 12.21 A.5 - Design of Parking Facilities). Those standards are not affected by AB 2097 and shall remain in effect. However, restrictions on the number or percentage of compact stalls per LAMC 12.21 A.5(c), shall not be enforced. A project may provide any combination of standard or compact stalls for non-required, voluntarily provided parking as long as they also meet EV and Disabled Access requirements. Bike Parking AB 2097 addresses automobile parking in areas near transit, and does not affect required bicycle parking. Therefore, the City will continue to require bicycle parking for residential and non-residential uses pursuant to the bicycle parking provisions in LAMC Section 12.21 A.16. Offsite Parking Affidavits, Offsite Parking Lease Agreements and Valet Parking For an existing offsite parking affidavit, if the project site for which the parking is to be provided for is eligible to use AB 2097, the affidavit may be terminated by contacting Building and Safety for review and permitting. For an existing offsite parking lease agreement approved by City Planning, if the project site for which the parking is to be provided for is eligible to use AB 2097, the lease agreement requirement may be removed by contacting DCP and Building and Safety for review and permitting. While offsite and valet parking can not be imposed or enforced if qualified under the law, any volunteered valet parking system must follow the provisions of LAMC 103.203 including the requirement for a Valet Parking Operator permit. Coastal Zone For properties located in the Coastal Zone, please refer to the June 30, 2023 memo by the California Coastal Commission. It acknowledges that minimum automobile parking requirements may not be imposed or enforced but that all other Coastal Act provisions remain, including those protecting, enhancing, and maximizing public access and recreation. Commercial Parking Subject to Existing Contractual Agreements AB 2097’s ban on imposing or enforcing parking minimums does not apply to any commercial parking requirements that are subject to an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, so long as the required commercial parking is shared with all members of the public. Event Center The bill provides that an event center is not subject to all of the parking reductions permitted in this bill and is required to provide automobile parking required by local ordinance for employees and other workers. Since the LAMC does not currently have separate parking requirements for employees or other workers, this provision does not apply. AB 2097 does not define “event center” nor does the LAMC. California Health and Safety Code Section 40717.8 defines the term to mean “a community center, activity center, auditorium, convention center, stadium, coliseum, arena, sports facility, racetrack, pavilion, amphitheater, theme park, amusement park, fairgrounds, or other building, collection of buildings, or facility which is used exclusively or primarily for the holding of sporting events, athletic contests, contests of skill, exhibitions, conventions, meetings, spectacles, concerts, or shows, or for providing public amusement or entertainment.” The City will use this definition until it creates its own. 453 CC 05-06-2025 453 of 554 5 Implementation On January 1, 2023, the AB 2097 provisions became effective and available to any qualified project, provided it meets the criteria in state law. The City’s Zone Information and Map Access System (ZIMAS) identifies parcels within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop under the Planning and Zoning tab within the table of contents. For Planning projects that intend to utilize AB 2097, the applicant will need to print the ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map with a date-stamp that is within 180 days of the date of submission of a City Planning application, along with a written request to utilize AB 2097, preferably at the time of application. Please note that the ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map printout includes an automatic date stamp. AB 2097 may also be requested after a City Planning application has been filed but prior to issuance of a letter of determination. This may result in the need for a revised application and/or plans to be submitted to the Project Planning team. In this instance, a written request is required along with the printed ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map showing a date within 180 days of the date of a revised submission. Furthermore, staff verification of AB 2097 eligibility may be required to ensure accuracy with current transit and bus line data. ZIMAS is provided as a public service, and due to the dynamic nature of zoning and transportation information verification of information may be required. For projects with an approved entitlement, the applicant shall submit the following: revised plans showing the changes made as a result of reducing automobile parking spaces; a date-stamped ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map (dated within 180 days of the submission date); and, a written request to utilize AB 2097, to the Senior Planner of the Project Planning team that processed the entitlement. Project modifications may require additional review and payment of fees. For projects that are already existing and operating, please contact the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety for instructions on how to implement AB 2097. For a project which is submitted for a permit application with LADBS, if it is eligible to use AB 2097 at any point between submittal date and permit issuance date, or if a ZIMAS AB 2097 Eligibility map is printed with a date-stamp within 180 days prior to submittal date and provided to the assigned Plan Check Engineer, or if a Planning entitlement indicates eligibility for AB 2097, it is eligible to utilize AB 2097 for the duration of the project until the permit is finaled and/or Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Verification of AB 2097 eligibility may be required to ensure accuracy with current transit and bus line data. If a project is already in plan check or under construction, and would like to utilize AB 2097, revised plans showing the changes as a result of reducing automobile parking spaces will need to be submitted to Building and Safety for a supplemental permit. Furthermore, if there is a Planning entitlement that needs to be updated for AB 2097 eligibility, a Planning clearance approval will need to be obtained. A fee may be required to process this request. 454 CC 05-06-2025 454 of 554 From:Mahesh Gurikar To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Fwd: Westport Project Changed Date:Friday, April 18, 2025 6:48:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Resend Begin forwarded message: From: Mahesh Gurikar <mgurikar@yahoo.com> Date: April 17, 2025 at 6:17:07 PM PDT To: lukec@cupettion.gov, piug@cupertino.gov, planningcomission@cupertino.org Subject: Westport Project Changed Members of the Planning Commission, Westport’s proposal to reduce the retail space and eliminate underground parking Please do not allow the requested changes to the project. 4000 sq fr retail space is too small. One restaurant may take 4000 sft. We need several retail businesses here. May be it can be reduced to about 12000 Sft. If underground parking is eliminated, those vehicles compete for parking on Mary Avenue. Please recommend Westport stick to original plan approved. Thank you, Mahesh Gurikar Resident of Cupertino 455 CC 05-06-2025 455 of 554 From:David Rolnick To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Westport Changes Date:Sunday, April 20, 2025 4:05:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commissioners, Please reject the proposed modifications to the Westport development. The city has already come to a compromise development agreement with the developer – one which reduced retail from 20,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. Now the developer is trying to break the agreement in major ways. If the Planning Commission and City Council give into this developer, it will open the floodgates for other developers to come back and reduce or eliminate retail, avoid park dedication fees, and provide insufficient parking for residents and guests. This developer needs to be held accountable to what it agreed to. They have likely made hefty profits from subdividing the property and selling off portions to other developers for apartments and townhouses. If the developer doesn’t want to build what they agreed to, they can just let the land sit idle (making the project even less economical), or better yet, sell it to the city for a park or pickleball courts. Regards, David Rolnick Resident of Cupertino 456 CC 05-06-2025 456 of 554 From:Piu Ghosh (she/her) To:Michael Woo; Luke Connolly; Lindsay Nelson; Benjamin Fu Subject:Fwd: HAC re Westport Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 10:21:23 AM Attachments:HAC Letter re Westport.pdf FYI… Piu Ghosh (she/her)​​​​ Planning Manager Community Development PiuG@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3277 Begin forwarded message: From: Corey Smith <corey@housingactioncoalition.org> Date: April 21, 2025 at 10:14:34 AM PDT To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.org>, Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>, "Piu Ghosh (she/her)" <PiuG@cupertino.gov> Subject: HAC re Westport  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Chair Rao, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, please see our attached letter regarding the Westport project. Let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Corey Smith Executive Director, Housing Action Coalition -- Corey Smith 陈锐 | Pronouns: He/Him Executive Director | Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 720, San Francisco, CA 94111 Cell: (925) 360-5290 | Office: (415) 300-0967 457 CC 05-06-2025 457 of 554 Email: corey@housingactioncoalition.org | Web: housingactioncoalition.org Please note the new email and website. To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". 458 CC 05-06-2025 458 of 554 April 21, 2025 Santosh Rao Chair City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 srao@cupertino.org Re: April 22 Hearing on the Westport Cupertino Project Dear Chair Rao: The Housing Action Coalition does not support the City’s position in the staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project cannot use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 does not allow retroactive application to previously approved projects. There is no basis in the text of AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, AB2097 provides for limited circumstances where previously approved commercial projects cannot use the law, but otherwise clearly provides the broad use of the law for existing, approved, or newly proposed projects, particularly housing projects. The staff report position on AB2097 is inconsistent with the clear intent of law and would by contrary to published guidance from State HCD and the housing production goals of the state. We encourage the Planning Commission read the clear text of AB2097 and reject the staff report’s position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project. Corey Smith, Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) CC: Piu Ghosh 1 459 CC 05-06-2025 459 of 554 Planning Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 piug@cupertino.gov Gian Martire Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 GianM@cupertino.org 2 460 CC 05-06-2025 460 of 554 3 461 CC 05-06-2025 461 of 554 From:Santosh Rao To:Lindsay Nelson; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Subject:Fw: HAC re Westport Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 11:39:36 AM Attachments:HAC Letter re Westport.pdf Dear City Clerk, Staff, Would you please include the below in written communications for the 04/22/25 planning commission meeting and also share with the planning commissioners. Thank you. Santosh Rao​​​​ Chair, Planning Commission SRao@cupertino.gov From: Corey Smith <corey@housingactioncoalition.org> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:13 AM To: Santosh Rao <srao@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <piug@cupertino.gov> Subject: HAC re Westport CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Chair Rao, On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, please see our attached letter regarding the Westport project. Let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Corey Smith Executive Director, Housing Action Coalition -- Corey Smith 陈锐 | Pronouns: He/Him Executive Director | Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 720, San Francisco, CA 94111 462 CC 05-06-2025 462 of 554 Cell: (925) 360-5290 | Office: (415) 300-0967 Email: corey@housingactioncoalition.org | Web: housingactioncoalition.org Please note the new email and website. To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all". 463 CC 05-06-2025 463 of 554 April 21, 2025 Santosh Rao Chair City of Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 srao@cupertino.org Re: April 22 Hearing on the Westport Cupertino Project Dear Chair Rao: The Housing Action Coalition does not support the City’s position in the staff report for the proposed modifications to the Westport Cupertino project that the project cannot use AB2097 to reduce its previously approved parking because AB2097 does not allow retroactive application to previously approved projects. There is no basis in the text of AB2097 supporting this position. Instead, AB2097 provides for limited circumstances where previously approved commercial projects cannot use the law, but otherwise clearly provides the broad use of the law for existing, approved, or newly proposed projects, particularly housing projects. The staff report position on AB2097 is inconsistent with the clear intent of law and would by contrary to published guidance from State HCD and the housing production goals of the state. We encourage the Planning Commission read the clear text of AB2097 and reject the staff report’s position that AB2097 is unavailable to the Westport Cupertino project. Corey Smith, Executive Director Housing Action Coalition (HAC) CC: Piu Ghosh 1 464 CC 05-06-2025 464 of 554 Planning Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 piug@cupertino.gov Gian Martire Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 GianM@cupertino.org 2 465 CC 05-06-2025 465 of 554 3 466 CC 05-06-2025 466 of 554 467 CC 05-06-2025 467 of 554 Apr 21, 2025 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard By email: srao@cupertino.org; Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov; dfung@cupertino.gov; slindskog@cupertino.gov; SScharf@cupertino.gov; planningcommission@cupertino.gov CC: piug@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 272-unit housing development project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, including 29 units aordable to very low-income households. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 2097. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless indings can be made regarding speciic, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible or reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written indings are made. (Id. at subd. (d).) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL oers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 www.calhdf.org 468 CC 05-06-2025 468 of 554 residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to ground floor retail, in addition to the previously approved waivers and concessions, unless it makes written indings as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a speciic, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the speciic adverse impact, or as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) that the concessions would not result in identiiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a speciic, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, iit makes any such indings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL speciically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Finally, the project is exempt from o-street parking pursuant to AB 2097 given its location near transit. CalHDF understands that City sta is contesting the applicability of the law to the project, given that the previous version of the project was entitled before the law came into eect. First, the project is seeking amended entitlements, and sta have accordingly forced the project to go through additional environmental review accordingly. It is unclear why sta feels that this amended entitlement process does not provide the applicant an opportunity to invoke the law. Additionally, AB 2097 clearly states “Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.” (Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (i).) The Legislature has clearly articulated its intent that local agencies should interpret the law as prohibiting parking requirements. Furthermore, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has issued guidance that AB 2097 can, in fact, be applied retroactively. From page 6 of the linked January 2025 memorandum: Can AB 2097 be used to eliminate an existing parking agreement? Yes, with the exception of contractual commercial parking agreements with a public agency that were executed before January 1, 2023. 2 of 3 469 CC 05-06-2025 469 of 554 The parking in question is not a contractual commercial parking agreement with a public agency, and therefore the HCD guidance is that AB 2097 can be used to eliminate the parking agreement between the applicant and the city. Finally, it is unclear why sta are ighting to impose parking requirements on assisted living and memory care units, where residents are likely unable to drive or choose not to. As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public beneit;; it will provide badly-needed aordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. Most importantly, it will allow seniors to age with dignity by providing invaluable assisted living and memory care housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-proit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 470 CC 05-06-2025 470 of 554 From:James Lloyd To:Santosh Rao; Tracy Kosolcharoen; David Fung; Seema Lindskog; Steven Scharf; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Cc:Piu Ghosh (she/her); City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:public comment re item 4 for 4/22/25 Planning Commission meeting Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 4:52:21 PM Attachments:Cupertino - 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard - HAA Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 4 for 4/22/25 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed 272-unit housing development project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, which includes 29 units affordable to very low- income households. Sincerely, James M. Lloyd Director of Planning and Investigations California Housing Defense Fund james@calhdf.org CalHDF is grant & donation funded Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/ 471 CC 05-06-2025 471 of 554 Apr 21, 2025 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard By email: srao@cupertino.org; Tkosolcharoen@cupertino.gov; dfung@cupertino.gov; slindskog@cupertino.gov; SScharf@cupertino.gov; planningcommission@cupertino.gov CC: piug@cupertino.gov; planning@cupertino.gov; CityAttorney@cupertino.gov; CityManager@cupertino.gov; CityClerk@Cupertino.gov Dear Cupertino Planning Commission, The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 272-unit housing development project at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, including 29 units aordable to very low-income households. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 2097. The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless indings can be made regarding speciic, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d), (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible or reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written indings are made. (Id. at subd. (d).) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL oers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610 www.calhdf.org 472 CC 05-06-2025 472 of 554 residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to ground floor retail, in addition to the previously approved waivers and concessions, unless it makes written indings as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a speciic, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the speciic adverse impact, or as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) that the concessions would not result in identiiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a speciic, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, iit makes any such indings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL speciically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Finally, the project is exempt from o-street parking pursuant to AB 2097 given its location near transit. CalHDF understands that City sta is contesting the applicability of the law to the project, given that the previous version of the project was entitled before the law came into eect. First, the project is seeking amended entitlements, and sta have accordingly forced the project to go through additional environmental review accordingly. It is unclear why sta feels that this amended entitlement process does not provide the applicant an opportunity to invoke the law. Additionally, AB 2097 clearly states “Therefore, this section shall be interpreted in favor of the prohibition of the imposition of mandatory parking minimums as outlined in this section.” (Gov. Code, § 65863.2, subd. (i).) The Legislature has clearly articulated its intent that local agencies should interpret the law as prohibiting parking requirements. Furthermore, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has issued guidance that AB 2097 can, in fact, be applied retroactively. From page 6 of the linked January 2025 memorandum: Can AB 2097 be used to eliminate an existing parking agreement? Yes, with the exception of contractual commercial parking agreements with a public agency that were executed before January 1, 2023. 2 of 3 473 CC 05-06-2025 473 of 554 The parking in question is not a contractual commercial parking agreement with a public agency, and therefore the HCD guidance is that AB 2097 can be used to eliminate the parking agreement between the applicant and the city. Finally, it is unclear why sta are ighting to impose parking requirements on assisted living and memory care units, where residents are likely unable to drive or choose not to. As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public beneit;; it will provide badly-needed aordable housing; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness. Most importantly, it will allow seniors to age with dignity by providing invaluable assisted living and memory care housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-proit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. Sincerely, Dylan Casey CalHDF Executive Director James M. Lloyd CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations 3 of 3 474 CC 05-06-2025 474 of 554 From:Jean Bedord To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc:Simsik, Balint; Zak, Cascade Subject:Agenda Item 4, Planning Commission, Apr. 22: Modifications for Westport Development Assisted Living Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:48:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission and Planning Staff, I urge you to approve the application for modification of this previously approved project, WITHOUT the additional condition of adding 20 more parking spaces. Retention of the retail space for restaurants is crucial to this location. The city lost Hobees, Coffee Society, Togos, Jamba Juice, an ice cream shop, and an Indian restaurant at this location. It was a community gathering place for both residents and DeAnza College. A new event center is being built across the street at DeAnza Community College, but there is no food service to entice the attendees to spend money in Cupertino, which they did at Hobee's when Flint Center was operational. DeAnza also has another theatre and Euphrat Art Center across the street. Students and staff at DeAnza congregate at eating places. The Bistro planned at the corner of Mary and Stevens Creek is crucial for the Senior Center. Our members want a place to go to have coffee and lunch with their friends since the Senior Center does not have food service. Later in the day, DeAnza students need a place to get something besides student union food, which closes before evening classes are over. The pickleball and tennis players would like a place to eat, as well as other users of Memorial Park. Currently this location is a food desert, in an area that could be a vibrant center and a revenue generator for the city. Failing to retain the 4,000 sq. ft. of retail in this project would doom the retail already included in the Westport BMR housing due to lack of foot traffic. I realize that parking in this area has been contentious, but no matter how much parking is built, there will always be complainers. Same is true for traffic . Depending on the time of day, traffic and parking on Mary is not heavy. I urge the city to rethink parking management. Why is the city prioritizing car space over people space? Isn’t it time to figure out how to manage “shared parking” with multiple uses? Spaces do not have to be used 24/7 for the same use. Specifically: Retail spaces are empty after closing hours and overnight Residential spaces need overnight parking but are largely empty during the day while residents are working Service providers for seniors and IDD clients generally work during the day, not on weekends. Visitors to assisted living/memory care do not stay long, and are usually afternoon and evening Festivals utilize the abundant FREE public parking at DeAnza Community College Abundant FREE overflow public parking is available at DeAnza Community College Senior Center parking lot is empty in the evenings and weekends, other than festivals The parking dilemma needs to be addressed holistically by the city, rather than attempting to burden individual housing projects. New state laws, specifically AB2097, are aimed at 475 CC 05-06-2025 475 of 554 forcing cities to reduce parking requirements. Why isn’t Cupertino adjusting its requirements? Cupertino needs to build more housing, specifically for its aging senior population, so this project needs to move ahead without additional delays. It's already been five years since the initial approval which couldn't be financed. In the meantime, COVID impacted the project and now interest rates, tariffs and rising construction costs threaten to derail it once again. Keep in mind that the city issued only 80 building permits for new housing units in 2024, leaving a deficit of 4,431 units to fulfill the city’s RHNA number of 4,588 housing units by Jan. 31, 2031, in only six years. I urge Planning to remove obstacles to building housing, not create obstacles. Very concerned long-time resident, Jean Bedord Cupertino Senior Center Advisory Council President Age Friendly Cupertino task force member 476 CC 05-06-2025 476 of 554 From:radler digiplaces.com To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Slide for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:49:56 AM Attachments:Richard Adler 4.22.25.pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attached is a Powerpoint slide that I plan to use in making a public comment at this evening's planning commission meeting regarding Agenda Item #4, regarding the Westport Development plan modifications. I am currently planning to participate by Zoom, but may participate in person if I can. Richard Adler Age Friendly Cupertino 650-520-3045 477 CC 05-06-2025 477 of 554 478 CC 05-06-2025 478 of 554 Cupertino’s 65+ and 75+ Population 2015-2035 479 CC 05-06-2025 479 of 554 Data Sources 2015 City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master Plan Demographic Analysis (2016) 2020 Same as above (updated for 2020) 2025 Neilsberg demographic insights 2030–2035 Projections: •Santa Clara County Office of Aging Reports •State of California Department of Finance population projections •U.S. Census Bureau trends and regional aging patterns in Silicon Valley 480 CC 05-06-2025 480 of 554 From:Jennifer Griffin To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City Council Subject:Westport Underground Parking, Retail, Park Dedication Fees and Mary Avenue Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 1:25:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. (Please include the following comments as public input for Item Number 4 on the 4/22/25 Cupertino Planning Commission Agenda for Westport. ) Dear Planning Commission: Most of the Westport Community (formerly the Oaks) has been developed. I am very Happy to see the young oak trees planted to replace the historic oak trees that were on site Before the development. The only part of the Westport Community that needs to be finished is the section next To Mary Avenue (west side). This is being called Building 1. I am very concerned about the proposed changes at Building 1. A. Underground Parking. It looks as if the developer is not wanting to build the underground Parking under Building 1 that would provide promised parking for the residents of Building 2, provide Parking for the residents and support folks (family members, doctors, nurses, helpers, technicians, Emergency personnel, security, food delivery etc.) of Building 1, and parking for the retail for Building 1. Not providing adequate parking for Building 1 and Building 2 and Retail is an extremely bad plan. This parking was promised in the original discussions of this project over ten years ago. The parking Garage was a selling point to the city and public. I attended all those meetings. The current project Needs that parking. It is a disgrace to say everyone can walk 1/2 mile, especially when you are Dealing with seniors. To have Building 1 be regarded and marketed as an up-to-date state of the art senior care Facility there must be adequate parking. Families paying 5,000 to 8,000 dollars a month for Family members expect there to be adequate parking on site or else they may decide to Place family members elsewhere in other cities who care about the needs of patients and Their families. B. Loss of Proposed Retail. The proposal to drastically reduce the ground floor retail on Building 1 is not a good plan. This site, as the Oaks, previously provided Cupertino with a lot of ground Floor retail, and the decision to try to eliminate so much promised retail for Building 1 is not A good fit for the city of Cupertino and residents who want to shop in their own city. C. Loss of Park Dedication Fees. It is not a good idea to not provide parkland or pay the Park Dedication fee for Building 1. There is the need for new open space and parkland For the number of people being housed in Building 1. Parkland should be provided on Site or fees paid to allow the purchase of parkland for everyone in the city. That is the Expectation of the residents of Cupertino. D. Mary Avenue Traffic Management. Mary Avenue is going to be greatly affected by Building 1 and careful attention needs to be paid to make sure Mary Avenue is able To carry this traffic load, especially with its complicated intersection with Stevens Creek Blvd, Highway 85 and DeAnza College ramps to Stevens Creek Blvd crossing 481 CC 05-06-2025 481 of 554 Thid intersection. Providing adequate underground parking, retaining a lot of retail, paying park fees and Carefully configuring Mary Avenue will ensure that Building 1 at Westport will be a Success for everyone. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin Cupertino Resident 482 CC 05-06-2025 482 of 554 From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Council Subject:Fwd: Westport Underground Parking, Retail, Park Dedication Fees and Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 1:27:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk: Please include the following comment as public input for Item Number 4 In the Planning Commission Agenda for the 4/22/25 Planning Commission meeting on Westport. Thank you. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Westport Underground Parking, Retail, Park Dedication Fees and Mary Avenue From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 1:24 PM To: planningcommission@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com,citycouncil@cupertino.org (Please include the following comments as public input for Item Number 4 on the 4/22/25 Cupertino Planning Commission Agenda for Westport. ) Dear Planning Commission: Most of the Westport Community (formerly the Oaks) has been developed. I am very Happy to see the young oak trees planted to replace the historic oak trees that were on site Before the development. The only part of the Westport Community that needs to be finished is the section next To Mary Avenue (west side). This is being called Building 1. I am very concerned about the proposed changes at Building 1. A. Underground Parking. It looks as if the developer is not wanting to build the underground Parking under Building 1 that would provide promised parking for the residents of Building 2, provide Parking for the residents and support folks (family members, doctors, nurses, helpers, technicians, Emergency personnel, security, food delivery etc.) of Building 1, and parking for the retail for Building 1. Not providing adequate parking for Building 1 and Building 2 and Retail is an extremely bad 483 CC 05-06-2025 483 of 554 plan. This parking was promised in the original discussions of this project over ten years ago. The parking Garage was a selling point to the city and public. I attended all those meetings. The current project Needs that parking. It is a disgrace to say everyone can walk 1/2 mile, especially when you are Dealing with seniors. To have Building 1 be regarded and marketed as an up-to-date state of the art senior care Facility there must be adequate parking. Families paying 5,000 to 8,000 dollars a month for Family members expect there to be adequate parking on site or else they may decide to Place family members elsewhere in other cities who care about the needs of patients and Their families. B. Loss of Proposed Retail. The proposal to drastically reduce the ground floor retail on Building 1 is not a good plan. This site, as the Oaks, previously provided Cupertino with a lot of ground Floor retail, and the decision to try to eliminate so much promised retail for Building 1 is not A good fit for the city of Cupertino and residents who want to shop in their own city. C. Loss of Park Dedication Fees. It is not a good idea to not provide parkland or pay the Park Dedication fee for Building 1. There is the need for new open space and parkland For the number of people being housed in Building 1. Parkland should be provided on Site or fees paid to allow the purchase of parkland for everyone in the city. That is the Expectation of the residents of Cupertino. D. Mary Avenue Traffic Management. Mary Avenue is going to be greatly affected by Building 1 and careful attention needs to be paid to make sure Mary Avenue is able To carry this traffic load, especially with its complicated intersection with Stevens Creek Blvd, Highway 85 and DeAnza College ramps to Stevens Creek Blvd crossing Thid intersection. Providing adequate underground parking, retaining a lot of retail, paying park fees and Carefully configuring Mary Avenue will ensure that Building 1 at Westport will be a Success for everyone. Thank you. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin Cupertino Resident 484 CC 05-06-2025 484 of 554 From:radler digiplaces.com To:Santosh Rao Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Slides for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 -- Revised version Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:09:07 PM Attachments:Richard Adler 4.22.25 V2.pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have added a second slide to my presentation, so please substitute this version (labelled V2) for the one I sent previously. I have added a list of references for this data following my two slides, but I don't plan to show them, during my presentation. From: Santosh Rao <SRao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:08 AM To: radler digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com> Subject: Re: Slide for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 Thank you Richard for sharing your slides ahead of time and for your engagement on the item. Santosh Rao​​​​ Chair, Planning Commission SRao@cupertino.gov From: radler digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:48 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.gov> Subject: Slide for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attached is a Powerpoint slide that I plan to use in making a public comment at this evening's planning commission meeting regarding Agenda Item #4, regarding the Westport Development plan modifications. I am currently planning to participate by Zoom, but may participate in person if I can. Richard Adler 485 CC 05-06-2025 485 of 554 Age Friendly Cupertino 650-520-3045 486 CC 05-06-2025 486 of 554 From:radler digiplaces.com To:Santosh Rao Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:Slides for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 -- Revised version Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:09:07 PM Attachments:Richard Adler 4.22.25 V2.pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have added a second slide to my presentation, so please substitute this version (labelled V2) for the one I sent previously. I have added a list of references for this data following my two slides, but I don't plan to show them, during my presentation. From: Santosh Rao <SRao@cupertino.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:08 AM To: radler digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com> Subject: Re: Slide for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 Thank you Richard for sharing your slides ahead of time and for your engagement on the item. Santosh Rao​​​​ Chair, Planning Commission SRao@cupertino.gov From: radler digiplaces.com <radler@digiplaces.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:48 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission <planningcommission@cupertino.gov> Subject: Slide for Public Comment at Planning Commission meeting, 4.22, re Item #4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attached is a Powerpoint slide that I plan to use in making a public comment at this evening's planning commission meeting regarding Agenda Item #4, regarding the Westport Development plan modifications. I am currently planning to participate by Zoom, but may participate in person if I can. Richard Adler 487 CC 05-06-2025 487 of 554 Age Friendly Cupertino 650-520-3045 488 CC 05-06-2025 488 of 554 Presentation to Cupertino Planning Commission Richard Adler Age Friendly Cupertino April 22, 2024 V2 1 489 CC 05-06-2025 489 of 554 Cupertino’s 65+ and 75+ Population 2015-2035 Richard Adler April 22, 2025 2 490 CC 05-06-2025 490 of 554 Prevalence of Alzheimer’s in Cupertino’s 65+ Population Richard Adler April 22, 2025 3 491 CC 05-06-2025 491 of 554 From:Peggy Griffin To:Gian Martire; Piu Ghosh (she/her); Luke Connolly Cc:City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject:2025-04-22 Planning Commission Mtg - ITEM 4 Westport - PLEASE POST 2 PRESENTATIONS Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2025 8:55:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THIS ITEM. Dear Gian, Piu and Luke, Would you please post both Gian’s and the developer’s presentations to the city website for this meeting so people like myself can review them more slowly? Thank you very much, Peggy Griffin 492 CC 05-06-2025 492 of 554 Cupertino Assisted Living - Project Modification Back Up Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) Parking Needs: Use Expected Count Typical Parking Need Onsite Stalls Potential Surplus Reasoning for Delta Alternative for Potential Overflow Residents 171 Units 14 Stalls = 8% Utilization Rate (# of Cars / # of Units) 3 11 Residents will be encouraged against bringing cars. Onsite stalls will be dedicated to concierge vehicles. Concierge vehicles take Residents w/in 25 min radius, nearby Oakmont Properties have surplus parking (6.5-8.0 miles away in SJ) Staff 110 Staff / 3 Shifts = 37 Staff per Shift 10-13 Stalls = 25-35% of Max 40 Shift Staff 10 3 75% of staff at nearby Oakmont Properties take alt transit, staff will be incentivized through vouchers, etc. Bus, Bike, Hopper, Carpool, De Anza, Use of Retail Space when not open (i.e. night shift) Visitor 30 Daily throughout Day = 5-10 at given time 5-10 Stalls = 17-33% of Daily Visitors 5 5 Guest count is variable on day/time, estimated 30 guests per day spread across 3-6 visit times Uber/Carshare, De Anza Public Parking Subtotal - Senior Assisted Living 37 Stalls 18 Stalls 19 Stalls Retail 4 Stalls per 1,000 GSF on 4,000 GSF 16 Stalls 16 0 N/A Total 53 Stalls 34 Stalls 19 Stalls ALTERTNATIVE: REMOVE RETAIL SF Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls to Resident/Staff Parking 16 Stalls to Residential/Staff Parking Total - Senior Assisted Living 53 Stalls 34 Stalls Impacts to Building 2 (Senior Independent) if Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) doesn’t get built: 1. Added Annual Maintenance Costs per REA Budget: Year 1 REA Budget $97,945 Building 1 Share $50,931 2. Loss of 7 Parking Stalls to be provided following construction of Building 1 7 Parking Stalls Cost PSF SF per Stall Total Cost Underground $ value $300.00 325 $682,500 Surface $ value $60.00 325 $136,500 3. Loss of Common Open Space (Building 2 Open Space included in Building 1’s Central Green) Park SF Cost PSF Total Cost Estimated Cost of Park 12,250 $170 $2,082,500 includes Hard + Soft Costs 493 CC 05-06-2025 493 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13893 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 14. Subject: Per the Council's direction, review potential Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects to be defunded from the current approved list. City Council shall consider: A) Which of the following projects to consider defunding and eliminating, or; B) Reaffirm the current Capital Improvement Programs project list. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™494 CC 05-06-2025 494 of 554 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Per the Council’s direction, review potential Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects to be defunded from the current approved list. Recommended Action City Council shall consider: A) Which of the following projects to consider defunding and eliminating, or; B) Reaffirm the current Capital Improvement Programs project list. Background The proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 CIP and Five-year Plan was presented to the City Council on April 2. The Council instructed staff to identify potential CIP projects to be considered for removal or reduction in scope, and to be discussed in May. The motion from the April 2 meeting is as follows: MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded to approve the $2 million funding for the three projects proposed by staff, including the following input: • City Hall Annex to move forward with 100% design • City Hall renovation to come back in October/November, including financing options, cost-benefit analysis • Potential items to consider for removal or reduction in scope – based on Council input at the meeting or later – to come back in May • Capital budget format goes to Audit Committee for consideration Following the Council’s direction, staff has engaged with individual council members to survey which existing CIP projects should be considered for removal or reduction in the current approved scope. The following list comprises individual councilmember’s suggestions: 1. Stevens Creek Boulevard CL IV Bikeway - Phase 2A Construction & Design of Phase 2: requested by Councilmember Wang for defunding consideration. 2. Stevens Creek Boulevard CL IV Bikeway - Phase 2B Construction: requested by Councilmember Wang for defunding consideration. 3. Stevens Creek Boulevard CL IV Bikeway - Bandley Dr. Signal: requested by Councilmember Wang for defunding consideration. 495 CC 05-06-2025 495 of 554 Page 2 4. Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation: requested by Councilmembers Chao and Wang for potential reduction in the scope. 5. Bollinger Road Corridor Study: requested by Councilmembers Moore and Wang for defunding consideration. 6. Silicon Valley Hopper EV Parking: requested by Councilmember Wang for defunding consideration. Refer to Attachments A and B for information shared on these projects at the April 2 Council meeting. Attachment C is cost analysis information on the Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation project from the presentation to the City Council on February 4 in the context of awarding the design-build contract. Available Options In the sections that follow, information is provided on the existing funding and the fiscal impacts of defunding or continuing with each project. 1. Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway - Phase 2A Construction & Design of Phase 2 Project Description: Phase 2A includes design and construction of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Boulevard (SCB) from Wolfe Road to De Anza Blvd. Improvements include traffic signal modifications at Wolfe Road and De Anza Blvd. to provide separate bicycle phasing. SCB Class IV Bikeways is the top priority from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation plan (BTP), and a Tier One priority of the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PTP) – improving vehicular, bicyclist and pedestrian safety along one of Cupertino’s busiest arteries was considered a highly important project. This project is also a subsequent phase of a previous project (Phase 1). Phase 2 Design was approved as part of the FY2020-2021 CIP, and Phase 2 Construction was approved as a new project in the FY2021-2022 CIP. Status of the project: The SCB Class IV Bikeway, Phase 2A will begin construction activities in summer 2025. The contractor is currently procuring materials with long lead times. Project completion is expected by the end of the calendar year. Funding: The City anticipates receiving the grant funds upon completion of Phase 2A as noted in the tables below. The grant funds will not increase the project funding but will be used to reduce the expenditure of City funds allocated to the project. // // 496 CC 05-06-2025 496 of 554 Page 3 TABLE 1A Project name Project Description Year Initiated Approved Funding Project Total Unencumbered Funds Stevens Creek Blvd. Class IV Bikeway Phase 2A Design (2A and 2B) and Construction (2A) of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd. from Wolfe Road to DeAnza Blvd. (Externally Funded, in part) FY20-21 $350,000 $2,350,000 $277,829 Expenses to date: ~$310,000 Construction, City Funding FY21-22 $2,000,000 OBAG FY24-25 $807,000 SB1 FY24-25 $693,000 Fiscal Summary: The project (Phase 2A) has a total of $2,350,000 in City funding, not including grants. Approximately $310K has been spent to date, and the project is expected to have $2.2 million in expenses by the end of the project. The fiscal summary from the 2/04/25 mtg is copied below. TABLE 1B - FISCAL SUMMARY (information from February 4 Staff report) Current Funding Status (Budget) Amount City Approved Funds FY 21 – Phase 2A and 2B Design Phase $350,000 City Approved Funds FY 22 – Construction (Phase 2A) $2,000,000 Design and Construction Phase 2 – Subtotals: (budget unit 420-99-036) $2,350,000 Projected Funding Impact (Expenses) Amount Design Phase Expenditures to date ($213,863) Design Phase (for Phase 2B Design completion) ($96,620) *Construction Contract ($1,569,798 base contract and $156,980 contingency) ($1,726,778) *Construction Management ($185,000) Subtotal: ($2,222,261) *If Phase 2A project were defunded, a portion of these funds could be recovered. Summary Amount Current Project Budget (420-99-036) $2,500,090 Projected Funding Impact ($2,222,261) Remaining Funds: $277,829 497 CC 05-06-2025 497 of 554 Page 4 Construction Phase 2A External Funding Amount Local Match Total Amount One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) **$807,000 $93,000 $900,000 Senate Bill 1 (SB1) **$693,000 $32,000 $725,000 Total **$1,500,000 $125,000 $1,625,000 **The grant funds will offset Phase 2A expenditures. Option 1 – Defund the Project Defunding the project would allow approximately $2.04 million ($2,350,000 - $310,000 = $2,040,000) of City funds to be reallocated, pending resolution of expenditures on the construction contract and construction management contracts which are not accounted for presently. The City has paid approximately $310,000 in design phase expenses for Phase 2A and 2B. The SB1 funding ($693,000) can be reallocated to another qualifying project. The VTA OBAG-2 funding ($807,000) would be lost. While it is possible that VTA would allow relocation of these funds, it is highly unlikely. This action could also hinder the City’s ability to secure OBAG grant funding in the future. The City would also be cancelling two fully executed contracts for construction and construction management/inspection. The City has a “termination for convenience” clause built into our contracts. The City will need to provide some compensation to the contractor for activities to date, but this would be a relatively small portion of the contract total. At this time, an estimate would be $25K to $50K. With regards to future project bids, there could be some impacts as some contractors may decide to focus bidding efforts on projects from other Cities or private entities that do not have a history of terminating contracts. Additionally, these contractors would most likely be reluctant to spend time and effort on future bids in Cupertino. Option 2 – Continue with the Project Phase 2A construction has $1,500,000 in external funding which offsets the actual cost to the city to approximately $725K. ($2,222,261 - $1,500,000 = $722,261). TABLE 1C – FISCAL IMPACT OF DEFUNDING Options Approved City Funding *Expenses/ Encumbrances Grant Funding Applied Funding Return Defund $2,350,000 ($310,000) $2,040,000 Proceed $2,350,000 ($2,222,261) $1,500,000 $1,627,739 Difference $412,261 *Expenses-to-date are noted in the context of Defunding. Encumbrances (contracts) are considered if proceeding with the project. 498 CC 05-06-2025 498 of 554 Page 5 2. Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway - Phase 2B Construction Project Description: Phase 2B includes construction of the separated bikeway along SCB from De Anza Blvd. to Highway 85. The designs for SCB Phase 2A and 2B were jointly funded. SCB Bikeway Phase 2B and the Bandley Drive Signal Upgrade projects are intended to be combined during construction to increase efficiency, however funding is noted separately because the Bandley intersection project is partially funded with developer in-lieu fees. This project is designated as a priority in the BTP and PTP and is a subsequent phase of a previous project (Phase 1 and 2A). Improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety along SCB is a primary concern. The BTP named this the first priority, and the PTP assigned this Tier 1 priority. Status of the project: The SCB Class IV Bikeway, Phase 2B is 95% complete with the design phase. Prior to commencing with bidding and construction, the City intends to search for external funding sources and will return to City Council for funding approval for the project. TABLE 2 Project name Project Description Year Initiated Approved Funding Project Total Unencumbered funds Stevens Creek Blvd CL IV Bikeway Phase 2B Construction of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd from De Anza Blvd to US-85. This includes signal upgrades at Bandley Drive. *The design funding was in conjunction with Phase 2A. FY20-21 $0 $0 $0 *Expenses to date: $0 *Expenses to date for design are included in the Phase 2A design total. Option 1 – Defund the Project Defunding the project would result in $0 of City funds to be reallocated. The City has paid approximately $310,000 in design phase expenses for Phase 2A and 2B. Option 2 – Continue with the Project It is likely that external funding will be available for construction of Phase 2B to offset the use of City funds. However, no external funding has been acquired for Phase 2B to date. The estimated construction cost of this project is $1,800,000. 499 CC 05-06-2025 499 of 554 Page 6 3. Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway - Bandley Dr. Signal Project Description: Upgrades to the traffic signal at Bandley Dr. and SCB will include new conduit, wiring, traffic signal boxes, two new signal heads, and a split phase signal operation for vehicles entering onto SCB, to enhance safety and overall signal operation efficiency. SCB Phase 2A and 2B were jointly funded in design. SCB Bikeway Phase 2B and Bandley Drive Signal Upgrade projects are combined in design and construction to increase efficiency, however funding is noted separately because the Bandley intersection project is partially funded with developer in-lieu fees. Status of the project: For efficiency, the design and construction of this project is combined with the SCB Class IV Bikeway, Phase 2B project, which is 95% complete with the design phase. TABLE 3A Project name Project Description Year Initiated Approved Funding Project Total Unencumbered Funds Bandley Intersection Signal upgrades at Bandley Drive. Scope of work will be included in SCB Phase 2B for efficiency. (Externally Funded, in part) FY18- 19 $150,090 $142,208 Expenses to date: $7,882 In-Lieu funds FY18- 19 $25,658 City funding FY18- 19 $124,432 Option 1 – Defund the Project Defunding the project would result in $116,550 of City funds to be reallocated. The developer in-lieu funds would be addressed by the City Attorney at a future date. Option 2 – Continue with the Project It is likely that external funding will be available for construction of Phase 2B to offset the use of City funds. TABLE 3B – FISCAL IMPACT OF DEFUNDING Options Approved City Funding *Expenses/ Encumbrances Grant Funding Applied Funding Return Defund $124,432 ($7,882) $116,550 Proceed $124,432 ($150,090) $25,658 $0 Difference $116,550 500 CC 05-06-2025 500 of 554 Page 7 *Expenses-to-date are noted in the context of Defunding. Encumbrances (contracts) are considered if proceeding with the project. 4. Bollinger Road Corridor Study Project Description: The City intends to undertake a multifaceted approach to further inform the Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study (BRCSS) recommendations. Traffic modeling will perform microsimulation analyses of proposed alternatives. This will evaluate potential impacts, such as congestion or traffic diversion, and identify necessary mitigation measures. The City will engage a consultant to design and execute a robust stakeholder engagement process, including interviews, surveys, and workshops, culminating in a report to combines the findings and communicates outcomes. Lastly, a traffic enforcement initiative, guided by the Safe System Approach, will fund two traffic enforcement agents for a one-year pilot, enhancing safety as the project develops. This project is a health and safety priority, has been requested by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission in response to a fatality that occurred along this stretch of Bollinger Road, is a subsequent phase of a previous project following the 2020 initial study. Enhancing safety along the Bollinger Road Corridor is a priority in both the BTP and PTP. Secured grant funding for the analysis made it fiscally responsible to begin the study at this time. Status of the project: The City is coordinating with the grant agency to finalize and execute the grant agreement. Once the grant agreement is finalized, the City intends to procure a consultant team to perform the analysis and outreach efforts. The pre- design/analysis work on the Bollinger Road Corridor will be a two+ year process that is anticipated to be completed in FY 2028-2029. Funding for the final design and construction would be pursued after the analysis is complete. It is anticipated that the design and construction would be initiated in FY 2030-2031. The grant funding secured is from a federal grant program, which currently leaves some uncertainty as to whether the City will be able to finalize the grant agreement, and thus the City has not initiated any efforts that result in further expenditure. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has not yet signed the grant agreement and they are evaluating all pending agreements. TABLE 4A Project name Project Description Year Initiated Approved Funding Project Total Unencumbered funds Bollinger Road Corridor Study Traffic analysis, topographic and utilities survey, and preliminary engineering of Bollinger FY24- 25 $106,400 $532,000 $532,000 501 CC 05-06-2025 501 of 554 Page 8 Road. (Externally Funded, in part) Safe Streets 4 All (SS4A) grant FY24- 25 $425,600 Option 1 – Defund the Project Defunding the project would result in $106,400 of City funds being reallocated, and the grant funding would be lost. Option 2 – Continue with the Project It is likely that external funding will be available for the design and construction of the project once the traffic analysis and community input from this study are compiled into a report. TABLE 4B – FISCAL IMPACT OF DEFUNDING Options Approved City Funding *Expenses/ Encumbrances Grant Funding Applied Funding Return Defund $106,400 $0 $106,400 Proceed $106,400 ($532,000) $425,600 $0 Difference $106,400 *Expenses-to-date are noted in the context of Defunding. Encumbrances (contracts) are considered if proceeding with the project. 5. Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation Project Description: In 2023 PG&E announced a solar buy-back rate decrease, designated as Net-Energy Metering 3 (NEM 3), for electricity generated by photovoltaic (PV) systems. However, a window was provided to allow grandfathering buy-back rates, at the more economically-attractive NEM 2.0 rates, if interconnection applications were successfully submitted and corresponding systems are operational by 2026. NEM 2.0 Interconnection Applications were successfully submitted to PG&E for five Cupertino facilities: Blackberry Farm, Civic Center, Library, Quinlan Community Center & Senior Center, and Sports Center. This project aims to design and build PV systems at three of these locations. Council reviewed and approved the conceptual designs for Community Hall, Quinlan Community Center, and Sports Center in December 2024, before awarding the Design Build contract in February 2025. 502 CC 05-06-2025 502 of 554 Page 9 The City must connect the proposed photovoltaic systems to the grid by 4/15/2026 to take advantage of the NEM 2.0 applications, which provides 75 – 80% greater compensation than NEM 3 rates for electricity that is fed back into the electrical system. The savings in utility costs are projected to be approximately $290K annually, and $13.4 million over a 30-year lifespan. Installation of the PV systems is projected to provide substantial fiscal savings on utility costs. The use of cleaner energy sources is also a CAP goal. Status of the project: The PV project contracts for the design-build entity and construction management were approved in February and the design phase is underway. TABLE 5A Project name Project Description Year Initiated Approved Funding Project Total Remaining Funds Photovoltaics Systems (PV) Design & Installation This project will design-build PV systems at three locations: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Sports Center, and Community Hall. Estimated Completion: 2026 FY24-25 $6,300,000 $6,300,000 $6,296,600 Fiscal Summary (information from the February 4 staff report to award the DB contract): The PV Project budget (420-99-274) has a total City-funded approved project budget of $6,300,000. The total expenditures after completion of the project are estimated to be $4,624,491, with remaining funds of $1,675,509. TABLE 5B - Fiscal Summary Table Current Funding Status (Budget) Amount City Approved Funds - FY 25 $6,300,000 Projected Funding Impact (Expenses) Amount Expenses to date (Conceptual Design) ($59,610) Construction Contract ($3,939,881 base contract and $400,000 contingency) ($4,339,881) Construction Management ($225,000) Subtotal: ($4,624,491) Summary Amount Current Project Budget (420-99-036) $6,300,000 Projected Funding Impact ($4,624,491) Remaining Funds: $1,675,509 503 CC 05-06-2025 503 of 554 Page 10 The City will apply for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Direct Pay credit at the end of the project. If the application is successful, the rebate will cover 30% of the cost of the PV system installation. The project will also pursue the “Build America Buy America Act” (BABAA) domestic content bonus credit program for energy projects, which could return an additional 10% to the City. The BABAA bonus credit requires that the project use a specified percentage of domestically produced steel, iron, and manufactured products. The revenue from either of these rebate programs, as much as $1.4 million, is not guaranteed. The IRA credits are potentially at risk. At this time, Presidential Administration has paused all funding disbursements for projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act. Any disbursements are currently required to receive specific approval from the federal government. Option 1 – Defund the Project Defunding the project would result in approximately $6.2 million of City funds to be reallocated. The design-build contract with Syserco ($3.9 million) has been executed and some funds would be reimbursed to Syserco for time spent. The City would not see the $13.4 million in savings over the next 30 years on utility costs – those savings would be lost if the project is defunded. Option 2 – Continue with the Project This project is anticipated to save $13.4 million in the next 30 years in utility costs. Refer to Attachment C for more detail. With the federal rebates projected, 9 years is the payback period for the project costs. Without the federal rebates, the payback period is 13 years. TABLE 5C – FISCAL IMPACT OF DEFUNDING Options Approved City Funding *Expenses/ Encumbrances Rebate Funding Return Defund $6,300,000 ($59,610) $6,240,390 Proceed $6,300,000 ($4,624,491) $1,679,068 $3,354,577 Difference $2,885,813 *Expenses-to-date are noted in the context of Defunding. Encumbrances (contracts) are considered if proceeding with the project. 6. Silicon Valley Hopper EV Parking Project Description: Provide electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) for Silicon Valley Hopper EV fleet [formerly Via shuttle]. The Silicon Valley Hopper fleet requires dedicated EVCS for operational efficiency. 504 CC 05-06-2025 504 of 554 Page 11 Initiated as a pilot program by City Council in 2019 as Via-Cupertino, the micro-transit rideshare program rebranded in 2023 as Silicon Valley (SV) Hopper when it partnered with the City of Santa Clara. The project budget includes design and construction. The budget is not adequate for additional electrical service upgrades, if required. A search for additional external funding is underway. Presently the EV fleet is being parked and charged at De Anza College. The city of Santa Clara is exploring the option of providing overnight charging at existing EVCS in Santa Clara. They have been working with their utility provider for over a year, but the outcome is still uncertain. Status of the project: The City is currently seeking professional design services to prepare plans for construction. TABLE 6A Project name Project Description Year Initiated Approved Funding Project Total Unencumbered funds Silicon Valley Hopper EV parking Provide electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) for SV Hopper (formerly VIA) fleet. FY22-23 $350,000 $350,000 *$321,000 *$29,000 has been spent on preliminary engineering and design information. Option 1 – Defund the Project Defunding the project would result in $321,000 of City funds to be reallocated. Defunding the project means that the City would be reliant on utilizing non-City owned facilities to support the fleet of electric shuttle vehicles. Option 2 – Continue with the Project It is likely that external funding will be available for the design and construction of this project. TABLE 6B – FISCAL IMPACT OF DEFUNDING Options Approved City Funding *Expenses/ Encumbrances External Funding Funding Return Defund $350,000 ($29,000) $321,000 Proceed $350,000 ($350,000) $0 $0 Difference $321,000 *Expenses-to-date are noted in the context of Defunding. Encumbrances (contracts) are considered if proceeding with the project. Summary 505 CC 05-06-2025 505 of 554 Page 12 As part of the Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) review discussion on April 2, the City Council requested the opportunity to review certain CIP projects to consider defunding.  Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway - Phase 2A, 2B and Bandley Intersection: approximately $2.15 million could be returned to the Capital Reserve. This project was the top priority of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan to enhance safety on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Defunding this project could marginalize the City’s ability to acquire grant funding from VTA in the future.  Bollinger Road Corridor Study: the A conceptual study was published in 2021 and was informed by prior pedestrian/vehicular collisions that resulted in two deaths. The proposed traffic analysis and public outreach is partially (80%) funded through external grants, and the analysis will provide information essential to understanding the potential next steps. Defunding the study will return $100,000 to the Capital Reserve.  Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation: Approximately $6.2 million could be returned to the Capital Reserve. The completed project is anticipated to save $13.4 million over the next 30 years. With the federal rebates projected, 9 years is the payback period for the project costs. Without the federal rebates, the payback period is 13 years.  Silicon Valley Hopper EV Parking: Approximately $321,000 could be returned to the Capital Reserve if this project is defunded. Defunding the project means that our City’s fleet of electric shuttle vehicles are housed at non-City properties when not in use. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact Defunding of a CIP project would result in the approximate “Funding Return” total (listed below) being returned to the Capital Reserve. 1) Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway - Phase 2A = $2,040,000 2) Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway - Phase 2B = $0 3) Bandley Dr. Signal Upgrade = $116,550 4) Bollinger Road Corridor Study = $106,400 5) Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation = $6,240,390 6) Silicon Valley Hopper EV Parking = $321,000 Proceeding with the CIP project would result in the use of the previously appropriated funds, offset by the external funding listed in the tables above (approximately $1.9M to $3.6M). City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description None 506 CC 05-06-2025 506 of 554 Page 13 California Environmental Quality Act No California Environmental Quality Act impact _____________________________________ Prepared by: Susan Michael, CIP Manager Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works Tina Kapoor, Deputy City Manager Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A – FY 25-26 CIP Project Narratives-defunding review B – FY 25-26 CIP Fiscal Summary Table C – Photovoltaic Systems project cost analysis February 2025 507 CC 05-06-2025 507 of 554 CIP FY 2024-2025 • 5-year plan ATTACHMENT A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 and 5-YEAR PLAN NEW PROJECT NARRATIVES LEGEND Health and Safety Improvements Council, Commissions and/or Community Priority High Priorities established through City’s Master Plans or Condition Assessment Reports Projects that are subsequent phases of existing projects; or projects in the queue that need to be activated Projects that have secured external funding CIP FY24-25 • 5-year plan ATTACHMENT A page 1 Projects that have secured external funding, or which can result in positive fiscal impacts to the City CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVESATTACHMENT B FISCAL YEAR 2025 - 2026 PROJECT NARRATIVES Attachment B for Defunding Review ATTACHMENT A SIX May 6, 2025 508 CC 05-06-2025 508 of 554 CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway – Phase 2A Separated Bikeway & Signal Upgrades Total City Funding $ 2,350,000 City Funding $ 2,350,000 External Funding $ 807,000 (OBAG) External Funding $ 693,000 (SB1) Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 277,829 Funding Source, Approved Plan GF/GF, BTP Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location SCB: Wolfe to De Anza Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 053 and ST 059 Initiated FY20-21 Project Description Project Justification Prioritization Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Funding Information Operating Budget Impacts Phase 2A includes design and construction of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd (SCB) from Wolfe Road to De Anza Blvd. Improvements include traffic signal modifications at Wolfe Road and De Anza Blvd to provide separate bicycle phasing. The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvements needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. The number one priority of the Plan was to provide a separated Class IV bicycle lane on Stevens Creek Blvd. This project is the second phase to address that priority. Design and Documentation, and community outreach for Phase 2A (Wolfe Road to De Anza Blvd.) is complete. The construction contract for Phase 2A was awarded in February 2025. Construction will be complete before the end of the calendar year. See Phase 2B project narrative for more information on the subsequent work on this project. It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. This cost will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in the Operating budget. Improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern. The Bike Transportation plan named this the first priority, and the Pedestrian Transportation assigned this Tier 1 priority. External grant funding has been secured for this project (OBAG and SB1 funding) and this will be used to reduce the City’s costs on Phase 2A. The remainder of the funds allocated by the City for Phase 2 will be used on Phase 2B. PAGE 2 OF 7 509 CC 05-06-2025 509 of 554 CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway – Phase 2B Separated Bikeway & Signal Upgrades Total City Funding*$ TBD City Funding*$ 0 External Funding $ 0 Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)N.A. Funding Source, Approved Plan GF/GF, BTP Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location SCB: De Anza to Highway 85 Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 053 and ST 059 Initiated FY20-21 Project Description Project Justification Prioritization Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Funding Information Operating Budget Impacts Phase 2B includes design and construction of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd (SCB) from De Anza Blvd. to Highway 85. Upgrades to the traffic signal at Bandley Dr. and Stevens Creek Blvd. will include new conduit, wiring, traffic signal boxes, two new signal heads, and a split phase signal operation for vehicles entering onto Stevens Creek Blvd. *Note: SCB Phase 2A and 2B were jointly funded in design. SCB Bikeway Phase 2B and Bandley Drive Signal Upgrade projects are combined in design and construction to increase efficiency, however funding is noted separately because the Bandley intersection project is funded with DIL fees. The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvements needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City. The number one priority of the Plan was to provide a separated Class IV bicycle lane on Stevens Creek Blvd. This project is the second phase to address that priority. It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris. This cost will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in the Operating budget. Design and Documentation of Phase 2B and the Bandley project is 95% complete. The project will be permitted, bid, and constructed once Phase 2A is complete. Improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern. The Bike Transportation plan named this the first priority, and the Pedestrian Transportation assigned this Tier 1 priority. *External grant funding has been secured for Phase 2A of this project and this will be used to reduce the City’s costs on Phase 2A. The remainder of the funds allocated by the City for Phase 2 will then be used on Phase 2B. External funding may be available for Phase 2B. PAGE 3 OF 7 510 CC 05-06-2025 510 of 554 CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES Bandley Drive Signal Upgrades Traffic & Signal Upgrades Total Funding $ 150,090 City Funding $ 124,432 External Funding $ 25,658 (DIL) Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 142,210 Funding Source, Approved Plan GF & DIL/GF, BTP Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location SCB & Bandley Intersection Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-070, ST044 Initiated FY18-19 Project Description Project Justification Prioritization Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Funding Information Operating Budget Impacts Upgrades to the traffic signal at Bandley Dr. and Stevens Creek Blvd. will include new conduit, wiring, traffic signal boxes, two new signal heads, and a split phase signal operation for vehicles entering onto Stevens Creek Blvd. Note: SCB Bikeway Phase 2B and Bandley Drive Signal Upgrade projects are combined in design and construction to increase efficiency. Funding is noted separately because the Bandley intersection project is funded with DIL fees. The Bandley Drive Signal Upgrades will significantly enhance pedestrian safety and pedestrian connectivity across Stevens Creek Blvd within the Crossroads district by reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Vehicle safety will also be increased for vehicles exiting the Crossroads driveway and Bandley Drive. The signal upgrades will not increase operational costs. Design and Documentation of Phase 2B and the Bandley project is 95% complete. The project will be permitted, bid, and constructed once Phase 2A is complete. Improving vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern. This project will significantly enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety. External grant funding has been secured for Phase 2A. Additional external funding may be available for Phase 2B. The remainder of the City funds allocated for Phase 2 will be applied to Phase 2B once Phase 2A is complete. The scope of work for the Bandley intersection will be included in the Phase 2B scope of work for efficiency. PAGE 4 OF 7 511 CC 05-06-2025 511 of 554 CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES Bollinger Road Corridor Study Traffic Analysis, Feasibility and Preliminary Design Total Funding $ 532,000 City Funding $ 106,400 External Funding $ 425,600 5-year Funding Total $ 4,000,000 Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 532,000 Funding Source, Approved Plan GF, BTP & BCSS Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location Bollinger Road, De Anza Blvd to Lawrence Exp. Origin of Request Public Works, BPC Budget Unit 270-99-270, ST 067 Initiated FY24-25 Project Description Project Justification Prioritization Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Funding Information Operating Budget Impacts In December 2020, City staff initiated a safety and operational study of the Bollinger Road from De Anza Boulevard to Lawrence Expressway to identify improvements that will enhance pedestrian, bicycle, motor-vehicle, and transit operations as a safety corridor. This is a collaboration between the City of Cupertino and City of San José. Further design and analysis work is required. This includes a topographic and utilities survey of Bollinger Road, preliminary engineering, and traffic analysis. The traffic analysis will determine the potential for the road diet (Alternative A from 2020 Feasibility Study) to increase congestion or divert traffic onto residential streets, and any corresponding mitigation measures to limit that impact (Alternative B from 2020 Feasibility Study). Year 1 work includes preliminary design, feasibility, public outreach, traffic analysis, and topographic surveying. Year 2 will see continuation of Year One activities and initial preliminary engineering. Year 3 will encompass final preliminary engineering and preparation of final plans, specifications, and estimates. T.B.D. External grant funding obtained; 20% matching funds required. Improves safety and sustainable means of transportation and builds upon master plan priorities. Initial Traffic Study and preliminary designs can be initiated in this FY by PW. Funding for analyses, public outreach, and preliminary plans, and estimates. Construction of improvements will require additional funding. PAGE 5 OF 7 512 CC 05-06-2025 512 of 554 CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES Photovoltaic Systems Design & Installation Total Funding $ 6,300,000 City Funding $ 6,300,000 External Funding $ 0 Remaining Funds (Feb 2025)$ 6,296,600 Funding Source, Approved Plan CR, CAP Project Category Sustainability, Facilities Project Type Design and Construction Location Community Hall, Sports Center, Quinlan Community Center Origin of Request Public Works Initiated FY24-25 Project Description Project Justification Prioritization Projected Schedule/5-year Plan Information Funding Information Operating Budget Impacts In 2023 PG&E announced a rate decrease for electricity generated by photovoltaic (PV) systems (NEM 3) but provided a window to allow grandfathering the more economically-attractive NEM 2.0 rates if interconnection applications were successfully submitted and corresponding systems operational by 2026. NEM 2.0 Interconnection Applications were successfully submitted to PG&E for five Cupertino facilities: Blackberry Farm, Civic Center, Library, Quinlan Community Center & Senior Center, and Sports Center. This project aims to design and build PV systems at three locations. Council reviewed and approved the conceptual designs for Community Hall, Quinlan Community Center and Sports Center in December 2024 before awarding the Design Build contract in February 2025. The City must connect the proposed photovoltaic systems to the grid by 4/15/2026 in order to take advantage of the NEM 2.0 applications, which provides 75 – 80% greater compensation than NEM 3 rates for electricity that is fed back into the electrical system. The savings in utility costs are projected to be $290K annually, and $13.4M over a 30yr lifespan. Conceptual Design development and cost analysis completed in 2024. Design-Build: March 2025 to April 2026 Installation of the PV systems is projected to save $290K annually in utility costs. While additional maintenance will be required for the PV systems, additional staffing will not be required for ongoing operations and maintenance. Installation of the PV systems is projected to provide substantial savings on utility costs, going forward. The use of cleaner energy sources is a CAP goal. The proposed budget will enable design and construction of the systems. Inflation Reduction Act credits projected for this project are approximately $1.4M. Staff will also pursue other grant funding opportunities. PAGE 6 OF 7 513 CC 05-06-2025 513 of 554 PAGE 7 OF 7 514 CC 05-06-2025 514 of 554 FISCAL YEAR 2025 - 2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS • 5-YEAR PLAN Funding Types LEGEND Approved Plan(s) RUC = Restricted Use Category Parks ADA - ADA Transition Plan AP - Apple Funded Donation Streets & Infrastructure BCSS - Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study BBF - Blackberry Farm Enterprise Fund (560)(RUC)Transportation BCA - Building Condition Assessment DIL - Developer in Lieu Fund (RUC)Facilities CAP - Climate Action Plan DON - Donation New project for FY25-26 CCMP - Civic Center Master Plan GF - General Fund (420/429) (unrestricted)BTP - Bicycle Transportation Plan PD - Park Dedication Fund (280) (RUC)EP - Santa Clara County Expressway Plan RP - Recreation Program Enterprise Fund (580) (RUC)FMP - 2020 Fiber Master Plan SC - Sports Center Enterprise Fund (570) (RUC)GP - General Plan SCCP - Stevens Creek Corridor Park Capital Projects MPP - McClellan Ranch Preserve Master Plan Fund (427) (RUC)PMP - Pedestrian Master Plan SD - Storm Drain Improvement Fund (210) (RUC)PRSMP - Parks & Recreation System Master Plan TF - Transportation Fund (270) (RUC)PTP - Pedestrian Transportation Plan RRGE - Regnart Road Geotechnical Evaluation SCC - Stevens Creek Corr. Park Master Plan & Restor. SDMP - Storm Drain Master Plan EXISTING & NEW FY25-26 PROJECTS Description City Funding External Project Funding Current Total Project Budget Remaining Funds (3/14/25) FY 25-26 City Funding Funding Type Approved Plan Budget Unit Project No. FY Initiated ADA Improvements (Annually funded)970,000 0 970,000 191,990 110,000 GF GP/ADA 420-99-007 PVAR 002 FY16 Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) Implementation 2,006,470 423,420 2,429,890 1,536,282 940,000 GF BCA 420-99-063 BAI 001 FY19 City Hall Annex 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 1,872,539 GF CCMP 420-99-248 CIV 010 FY22 City Hall Improvements 500,000 0 500,000 378,036 GF CCMP 420-99-250 CIV 011 FY22 Library Expansion Project: landscaping & courtyard 8,705,438 1,000,000 9,705,438 1,391,910 GF CCMP 420-99-077 CIV 007 FY20 All Inclusive Play Area & Adult-Assistive Bathroom Facility (Jollyman Park) 2,418,146 2,473,201 4,891,347 4,255,313 GF PRSMP 420-99-051 PVAR 007 FY19 Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Plan 6,850,909 0 6,850,909 4,422,565 DIL GP, PRSMP 280-99-009 P LM 001 FY19 Park Amenity Improvements 600,000 0 600,000 417,460 GF PRSMP 420-99-086 PVAR 011 FY21 MRP West Parking Lot Improvements (Habitat monitoring)1,069,682 0 1,069,682 1,611 420-99-030 MRW 002 FY17 Annual Playground Replacement 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 913,755 GF PRSMP 420-99-085 PVAR 010 FY21 Stevens Creek Bridge Repair 172,000 688,000 860,000 172,000 TF GP 420-99-267 ST 063 FY24 McClellan Road Bridge Reconstruction 0 5,850,000 5,850,000 5,850,000 - Grants GP 420-99-273 ST 066 FY25 City Lighting LED improvements 1,350,000 1,350,000 501,074 GF GP 420-99-258 ST 052 FY22 City Bridge Maintenance Repairs (BPMP)2,176,105 1,893,195 2,176,105 174,347 TF GP 270-90-960 ST 002 FY15 Street Light Installation - Annual Infill (Annually funded)430,000 0 430,000 142,241 GF GP 420-99-056 ST 024 FY18 Vai Avenue Outfall 490,000 0 490,000 438,756 CR, SD GP 420-99-275 ST 065 FY25 Outfall Repairs 950,000 0 950,000 N.A.950,000 CR, SD GP FY26 Subtotal, Page 1 (Existing & New Projects)33,188,750 12,327,816 43,623,371 22,659,879 2,000,000 FY25-26 CIP Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT B 515 CC 05-06-2025 515 of 554 EXISTING & NEW FY25-26 PROJECTS (CON'T.) Description City Funding External Project Funding Current Total Project Budget Remaining Funds (3/14/25) FY 24-25 City Funding Funding Type Approved Plan Budget Unit Project No. FY Initiated Stevens Creek Blvd CL IV Bikeway - Phase 2A & Design 2,350,000 1,500,000 2,350,000 277,829 GF, Grant BTP 420-99-036 ST 053 FY21 Stevens Creek Blvd CL IV Bikeway - Phase 2B (design included in Phase 2A) 0 0 0 0 GF, DIL BTP 420-99-070 ST 044 FY19 Stevens Creek Blvd CL IV Bikeway - Bandley Dr. Signal 124,432 25,658 150,090 142,210 GF, DIL BTP 420-99-070 ST 044 FY19 Bollinger Road Corridor Study 106,400 425,600 532,000 532,000 CR, Grant BCSS 270-99-270 ST 067 FY25 Roadway Safety Improvements - High Friction Pavement & Speed Feedback Signage (HSIP) 356,180 3,205,620 3,561,800 3,500,800 CR/ Grant GP 270-99-271 ST 068 FY25 Tamien Innu - East Segment 0 2,536,000 2,536,000 1,411,377 AP/Grant BTP, PTP 420-99-036 ST 050, ST 046 FY21 Tamien Innu - Central Segment 0 4,785,000 4,785,000 4,582,979 AP/Grant BTP, PTP 420-99-036 ST 050, ST 046 FY21 Tamien Innu - West Segment 0 600,000 600,000 600,000 AP/Grant BTP, PTP 420-99-036 ST 051 FY21 School Walk Audit Implementation 23,989 1,221,863 1,245,852 939,405 AP/GF GP, PTP 420-99-069 ST 034 FY19 Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) expansion - Service Center 560,000 560,000 560,000 CR CAP 420-99-272 ST 069 FY25 Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation 6,300,000 0 6,300,000 6,296,600 CR CAP 420-99-274 FVAR 004 FY25 Silicon Valley Hopper EV Parking 350,000 0 350,000 321,000 GF, TIRCP CAP 100-88-265 ST 062 FY23 Subtotal, Page 2 (Existing & New Projects)10,171,001 14,299,741 22,970,742 19,164,200 0 Total (Existing & New Projects)43,359,751 26,627,557 66,594,113 41,824,079 2,000,000 FY25-26 CIP Page 2 of 3 516 CC 05-06-2025 516 of 554 COMPLETED PROJECTS Description City Funding Revenue Funding Sources Total Project Budget Remaining Funds (3/14/25) Funding Type Approved Plan Budget Unit Project No. FY Initiated Blackberry Farm Pool Improvements 750,000 0 750,000 31,204 GF PRSMP 420-99-073 BBF 004 FY22 Vai Avenue Outfall - Repairs*490,000 0 490,000 438,756 CR, SD GP 420-99-275 ST 065 FY25 De Anza Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes 530,533 166,259 530,533 10,194 GF BTP 420-99-262 ST 061 FY23 McClellan Road Separated Bike Corridor, Phase 3 164,410 2,135,000 2,299,410 99,273 AP/GF/ Grant BTP 420-99-036 ST 047 FY20 Totals (Completed Projects) (Vai is not included)1,444,943 2,301,259 3,579,943 140,671 FIVE-YEAR PLAN Project (Years 2-5 show 5% escalation costs in grey text) FY25-26 Funding Year 2 FY26-27 Projected Cost Year 3 FY27-28 Projected Cost Year 4 FY28-29 Projected Cost Year 5 FY29-30 Projected Cost Funding Type Approved Plan Budget Unit Project No. CIP project # ADA Improvements (Annually funded)110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 GF GP/ADA 420-99-007 PVAR 002 2016-03 Citywide Facilities Condition Assessment Implementation (FCA) 940,000 2,300,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 GF BCA 420-99-063 BAI 001 2019-02 Outfalls Repairs 950,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 CR, SD GP 420-99-273 ST 066 2025-03 BBF Golf Renovation: minimal repairs 1,433,250 1,504,880 1,580,150 1,659,158 BBF PRSMP, SCC totals 2,000,000 3,015,000 1,720,000 3,305,150 1,730,000 FY25-26 CIP Page 3 of 3 517 CC 05-06-2025 517 of 554 PHOTOVOLTAIC PROJECT COST/SAVINGS 17-Oct-24 A B C D E F G H I J K L M Facility kWh kWh Cost cost per kWh (ave.) PV systems kWH generation PV systems annual savings* PV systems annual electrical bill** PV systems lifecycle savings*** Constrn Cost: PV only Constrn Cost: EVCS / Misc. Non- ITC items only Constrn. Cost (PV + EV) IRA funding (40% of PV only) City Funding Payback Period (years) **** Payback Period (Years, No ITC) formula A/B B - E H + I H * 40% J - K DBE contract pricing for 3 sites Quinlan Community Center (0116367009-116367840)383,109 $121,336 $0.32 483,143 $163,067 -$41,731 $7,502,535 $1,691,865 $196,795 $1,888,660 $676,746 $1,211,914 6.72 9.77 Sports Center (0116367009- 116971849)329,369 $108,143 $0.33 335,228 $96,612 $11,531 $4,518,119 $1,375,175 $201,868 $1,577,043 $550,070 $1,026,973 9.11 12.81 Community Hall (0116367009- 116367449)114,600 $39,810 $0.35 71,332 $31,196 $8,614 $1,398,696 $471,816 $2,362 $474,178 $188,726 $285,452 8.11 12.32 $269,289 $290,875 -$21,586 $13,419,350 $3,538,856 $401,025 $3,939,881 $1,415,542 $2,524,339 with 10% contingency $4,339,881 with 'wood' contingency $4,639,881 *Annual savings includes 5% utility escalation over a 1.5 year construction period , Year 1 ***Lifecycle Savings (30yrs) includes: 5% utility escalation, 0.5% module degradation, 30 years, NEM3 Included **The costs (B) are offset by the kWh savings (E), resulting in lowered electrical bill (F) ****Discounted cashflow methodology includes: 5% utility escalation, 0.5% module degradation, 30 years, NEM3 Included ATTACHMENT C - PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS DESIGN AND INSTALLATION PROJECT COST ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 2025 PAGE 1 OF 2 Cost Revision for 2 sites: Comm Hall and QCC (15% increase) Quinlan Community Center (0116367009-116367840)383,109 $121,336 $0.32 483,143 $163,067 -$41,731 $7,502,535 $1,945,645 $226,314 $2,171,959 $778,258 $1,393,701 7.58 10.94 Community Hall (0116367009- 116367449)114,600 $39,810 $0.35 71,332 $31,196 $8,614 $1,398,696 $542,588 $2,716 $545,305 $217,035 $328,269 9.13 13.74 $161,146 $194,263 -$33,117 $8,901,231 $2,488,233 $229,031 $2,717,264 $995,293 $1,721,970 with 10% contingency $2,988,990 Cost Revision for 1 site: Comm Hall (15% increase) Community Hall (0116367009- 116367449)114,600 $39,810 $0.35 71,332 $31,196 $8,614 $1,398,696 $542,588 $461,179 $1,003,767 $217,035 $786,732 9.13 13.74 $39,810 $31,196 $8,614 $1,398,696 $542,588 $461,179 $1,003,767 $217,035 $786,732 with 10% contingency $1,104,144 Cost Revision for 2 sites: Comm Hall and CSC (15% increase) Sports Center (0116367009- 116971849)329,369 $108,143 $0.33 335,228 $96,612 $11,531 $4,518,119 $1,581,451 $232,148 $1,813,599 $632,581 $1,181,019 10.21 14.25 Community Hall (0116367009- 116367449)114,600 $39,810 $0.35 71,332 $31,196 $8,614 $1,398,696 $542,588 $2,716 $545,305 $217,035 $328,269 9.13 13.74 $147,953 $127,808 $20,145 $5,916,815 $2,124,040 $234,865 $2,358,904 $849,616 $1,509,288 with 10% contingency $2,594,795 Cost Revision for 2 sites: Comm Hall and CSC (15% increase) Sports Center (0116367009- 116971849)329,369 $108,143 $0.33 335,228 $96,612 $11,531 $4,518,119 $1,581,451 $232,148 $1,813,599 $632,581 $1,181,019 10.21 14.25 Community Hall (0116367009- 116367449)114,600 $39,810 $0.35 71,332 $31,196 $8,614 $1,398,696 $542,588 $2,716 $545,305 $217,035 $328,269 9.13 13.74 $147,953 $127,808 $20,145 $5,916,815 $2,124,040 $234,865 $2,358,904 $849,616 $1,509,288 with 10% contingency $2,594,795 CURRENT PROJECT SCOPE: REDUCED PROJECT SCOPE OPTIONS: 518 CC 05-06-2025 518 of 554 Costs & Savings: Implement 3 Sites •Annual Cost Savings: $290,875 projected, with $13.4M 30-year lifecycle savings •Cost of Design and Construction ($4.4M) is less than project budget ($6.3M) •Net cost to City after IRA reimbursement: $2.5M projected •Net cost to City without IRA reimbursement: $4.4M projected; $1.5M differential and longer payback period •Project completion timeline for NEM2.0 compliance is April 2026 (time is of the essence). •Annual Cost Savings: $290,875 projected, with $13.4M 30-year lifecycle savings •Cost of Design and Construction ($4.4M) is less than project budget ($6.3M) •Net cost to City after IRA reimbursement: $2.5M projected •Net cost to City without IRA reimbursement: $4.4M projected; $1.5M differential and longer payback period •Project completion timeline for NEM2.0 compliance is April 2026 (time is of the essence). Costs & Savings: Fiscal Summary ATTACHMENT C - PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS DESIGN AND INSTALLATION PROJECT COST ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 2025 PAGE 2 OF 2 519 CC 05-06-2025 519 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13920 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 15. Subject: Introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 pertaining to Removal of Closed Session Start Time and Clarification that Meetings Rescheduled Due to Holidays or Elections Retain Regular Meeting Status Introduce Ordinance No. 25-2271: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code amending Section 2.04.010, pertaining to closed session and regular meetings, by title only, and waive the first reading." CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™520 CC 05-06-2025 520 of 554 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Subject Removal of Closed Session Start Time and Clarification that Meetings Rescheduled Due to Holidays or Elections Retain Regular Meeting Status Recommended Action Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code amending Section 2.04.010, pertaining to closed session and regular meetings, by title only, and waive the first reading. Executive Summary Proposed changes remove the fixed start time for closed sessions on regular meeting days, allowing the Council to determine start times as needed. Additionally, the amendments confirm that when regular meetings are rescheduled due to a legal holiday or a regular Cupertino election, the rescheduled meetings shall continue to be considered regular meetings. Background Currently, the Municipal Code sets a fixed start time of 6:00 p.m. for City Council closed sessions held on regular meeting days. Including such administrative detail in the Municipal Code is both unnecessary and overly restrictive. Separately, the Municipal Code does not clearly state that City Council meetings automatically moved pursuant to the Municipal Code due to a holiday or an election day retain their status as regular meetings. As such, the City Attorney recommends: 1) removing the closed session start time from the Municipal Code and 2) updating the Municipal Code to confirm that meetings moved because of a holiday or a regular Cupertino election are also considered regular meetings of the City Council. Reasons for Recommendation 521 CC 05-06-2025 521 of 554 01276.0001 2000451.2 4/25/2025 The current schedule limits the time available for the City Council to conduct the City’s confidential business in closed session, as is permitted under the Brown Act, to less than 45 minutes, which is insufficient. Rather than include a codified closed session start time in the City’s municipal code, the City Council may choose to set an informal standard start time for closed sessions. If a particular closed session agenda requires either more or less time than provided by the standard start time, the City Attorney or other City Staff may set an alternate time. If the start time needed is earlier than the standard start time, staff will poll Councilmembers in advance of setting the agenda to ensure availability. Other Available Options 1. Set a start time of 5:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m., which could be shortened as needed for any specific closed session meeting. But this does not provide the additional flexibility of allowing the City Council to set the standard start time for itself. 2. Set a start time of 5:30 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m., which adds thirty minutes. But again, this does not provide the flexibility of allowing the City Council to set the standard time for itself. 3. Make no change to the status quo. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact. California Environmental Quality Act No California Environmental Quality Act impact. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Brendan Browne, Special Counsel Reviewed by: Floy Andrews, City Attorney Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft Ordinance (redline) B – Draft Ordinance (clean) 522 CC 05-06-2025 522 of 554 01276.0001 2001742.1 1 ORDINANCE NO. __________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 2, ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL, OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING SECTION 2.04.010, PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR MEETINGS The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that: WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code currently sets a fixed set time of 6:00 p.m. for the City Council closed session meetings held on regular days; and WHEREAS, often the City Council needs more time to discuss the agendized matters than the 30-40 minutes currently provided by the codified start time of 6:00pm; and WHEREAS, it is preferable that the City Council have the flexibility to begin closed session meeting earlier than 6:00 p.m. based on the availability of Councilmembers; and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code does not clarify that meetings moved because of a holiday or Cupertino elections are regular meetings of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to improve procedural flexibility and transparency by removing the fixed closed session start time from the Cupertino Municipal Code and confirming that rescheduled meetings due to holidays or elections are still considered regular meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Adoption. The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown below. Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in existing provisions is not amended or readopted by this Ordinance. Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code. “Sec. 2.04.010 Regular Meetings. 523 CC 05-06-2025 523 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 2 01276.0001 2001742.1 The City Council shall hold regular meetings on the first and third 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. The City Council may cancel a regular meeting by a vote of a majority of the Council. On regular meeting days, the City Council shall begin any closed session items at six o’clock p.m. City Council meetings that fall on legal holidays shall automatically be moved to the following day. and shall be regular meetings. City Council meetings that fall on any Election Tuesday in a regular Cupertino election year shall automatically be moved to the first Monday of the month. and shall be regular meetings.” SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions. SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act. This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because 524 CC 05-06-2025 524 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 3 01276.0001 2001742.1 it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed action to remove the fixed start time for closed session items on regular meeting days and the rescheduled meetings shall continue to be considered regular meetings would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment because it is a procedural change that does not result in a physical change to the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment. SECTION 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. SECTION 5: Publication. The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on May 6, 2025 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on May 20, 2025 by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 525 CC 05-06-2025 525 of 554 Ordinance No. __________ Page 4 01276.0001 2001742.1 ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ______________________ Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino ________________________ Date ATTEST: _______________________ Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk ________________________ Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Floy Andrews, City Attorney ________________________ Date 526 CC 05-06-2025 526 of 554 01276.0001 2001742.1 ORDINANCE NO. __________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 2, ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL, OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING SECTION 2.04.010, PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION AND REGULAR MEETINGS The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that: WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code currently sets a fixed set time of 6:00 p.m. for the City Council closed session meetings held on regular days; and WHEREAS, often the City Council needs more time to discuss the agendized matters than the 30-40 minutes currently provided by the codified start time of 6:00pm; and WHEREAS, it is preferable that the City Council have the flexibility to begin closed session meeting earlier than 6:00 p.m. based on the availability of Councilmembers; and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Municipal Code does not clarify that meetings moved because of a holiday or Cupertino elections are regular meetings of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to improve procedural flexibility and transparency by removing the fixed closed session start time from the Cupertino Municipal Code and confirming that rescheduled meetings due to holidays or elections are still considered regular meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Adoption. The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as shown below. Text added to existing provisions is shown in bold double-underlined text (example) and text to be deleted in shown in strikethrough (example). Text in existing provisions is not amended or readopted by this Ordinance. Text in italics is explanatory and is not an amendment to the Code. “Sec. 2.04.010 Regular Meetings. 527 CC 05-06-2025 527 of 554 [Brief Description]- Page 2 01276.0001 2001742.1 The City Council shall hold regular meetings on the first and third 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. The City Council may cancel a regular meeting by a vote of a majority of the Council. City Council meetings that fall on legal holidays shall automatically be moved to the following day and shall be regular meetings. City Council meetings that fall on any Election Tuesday in a regular Cupertino election year shall automatically be moved to the first Monday of the month and shall be regular meetings. SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions. SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act. This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty 528 CC 05-06-2025 528 of 554 [Brief Description]- Page 3 01276.0001 2001742.1 to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed action to remove the fixed start time for closed session items on reg ular meeting days and the rescheduled meetings shall continue to be considered regular meetings would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment because it is a procedural change that does not result in a physical change to the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment. SECTION 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. SECTION 5: Publication. The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on May 6, 2025 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on May 20, 2025 by the following vote: Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 529 CC 05-06-2025 529 of 554 [Brief Description]- Page 4 01276.0001 2001742.1 SIGNED: ______________________ Liang Chao, Mayor City of Cupertino ________________________ Date ATTEST: _______________________ Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk ________________________ Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ Floy Andrews, City Attorney ________________________ Date 530 CC 05-06-2025 530 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 24-13570 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 16. Subject: Councilmember Reports CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™531 CC 05-06-2025 531 of 554 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT Meeting: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 Reporting Councilmember: Mayor Liang Chao Report Dates: 4/8/25 to 4/29/25 ● Last Activity Report in the April 15, 2025 Council Meeting Agenda. Section 1: Announcement - Message from the Mayor: ❖ Mayor’s Initiatives: ➢ Cupertino Stories: You are welcome to email entries to CupertinoStories@gmail.com. ■ Thank you to Cupertino Science Technology University (CSTU) for managing the project. They have developed tools to convert audio/video stories to text. ■ The website will be redesigned soon to accept story submissions. ➢ Booth at the Festivals: Thank you for volunteers helping to support the Mayor’s Initiatives Booth at April 5 Earth Day Festival and April 26 & April 27 Cherry Blossom Festival. ➢ Dance in the Plaza: The first Dance in the Plaza was held on Saturday April 12 from 2:30-5:30pm. Thank you for Amazing Taiwan for sponsoring the event. We had a lot of fun. The second Dance in the Plaza will be held in June. Date to be announced later. ➢ Volunteer Appreciation: The Mayor hosted an Appreciation Dinner for CERT, CARE, ARM volunteers and block leaders on April 17 after a proclamation was presented to them at the April 15 Council Meeting. About 50 people aended. Many have served over 10, 20 years and some even served 30 years. Thank you to AlphaX for sponsoring the dinner. ➢ Hand Puppet Show: May 4, 2025 2:30-5pm Cupertino Community Hall ■ Watch the legendary hand puppet show from Taiwan. Bring 600cc soda boles to make your own hand puppet. More details. ➢ Community Multicultural Juried Art Show at the AAPI Multicultural Festival: The Cupertino Art Show will be held on Saturday May 24, from 12pm to 4pm in collaboration with the APPI Multicultural Festival. Submit your entries by May 18 at hps://aapicommunityjuriedartshow.artcall.org/ 1 532 CC 05-06-2025 532 of 554 ❖ Monthly Chat with Mayor Community Meetings: These meetings will be generally held on the second Monday at 5pm each month, but it might be moved to other Mondays if needed. The location will rotate so that we cover different businesses each month. ➢ The last Mayor’s Chat was held at the Jade Tea Garden on April 15. Thank you to Captain Neil Valenzuela for sending Lieutenant Shawn Flores to represent him and answer questions. ➢ The next Monthly Chat with Mayor will be held on Monday May 12th at 5pm. The location is Lee’s Sandwiches (20363 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014) at St. Joseph’s Plaza. 2 533 CC 05-06-2025 533 of 554 ❖ FY 2025-27 Work Program Prioritization: The staff has proposed a new process for Work Program Prioritization in an info memo. Check the Work Program page for updates. ➢ At the March 18 Council Meeting, the Council adopted a list of Work Program items for consideration for the FY 25-26 budget. ➢ The final decision will likely be made in April/May before the Council adopts the FY 25-26 budget in June 2025. ❖ Process to Request Certificate of Recognition or Commendation: ➢ To ensure such requests are handled as smoothly and efficiently as possible, the City Manager’s Office has implemented a dedicated process. ➢ We kindly ask that you complete the following form, which will allow Mayor Chao to present a certificate of recognition: hps://cupertino.gov/councilmeetingrequest ❖ Proclamations at Council meetings: This year, I plan to follow a tradition upheld by some former Cupertino mayors and other mayors in recognizing organizations or individuals with proclamations during Council meetings. My goal is to honor those who have made consistent and/or significant contributions to Cupertino, with an emphasis on those who are less well-known. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to email me at LChao@Cupertino.gov. Proclamations for contributions will generally be presented at the second Council meeting of each month, while the first meeting will continue to recognize special observances (e.g., awareness months or weeks) as before. You are also welcome to submit suggestions for these recognitions. Section 2: Commiee Assignment 2024-04-09 Santa Clara Valley Water Commission meeting (Agenda, Video to be posted later) ● In order to support infrastructure projects to supply water to the region, the water rate is projected to increase by 9.9% from FY 26 to FY 34. Thus, the rate will double in 10 years. (Cupertino belongs to North 3 534 CC 05-06-2025 534 of 554 County) ● Here are the infrastructure projects in each region: 2024-04-23 West Valley Mayors and Managers Monthly Meeting - at Gardenia, Los Gatos ● Each city shares updates and their effort on Emergency Preparedness. ● Los Gatos Mayor formed an advisory group of about 15 people, reporting to the Mayor, where there are representatives from the Fire Department and Red Cross. ● Saratoga and Los Gatos had multiple study sessions on emergency preparedness and the high severity fire zones. ● Monte Sereno is looking into a simulation for evacuation and a radio station for communication during emergency. 4 535 CC 05-06-2025 535 of 554 Section 3: Activities by Date (Date, Title, and Description): NOTE: ● This list does not include internal meetings with staff only, such as prep sessions or meetings with the City Manager. ● This list includes activities to “represent the community I am elected to serve”, “to respond to community needs and complaints,” and “to communicate policies and programs to residents,” among other responsibilities of a City Councilmember. ● Due to my work schedule, I have cut down on the event aendance for ceremonial purposes, especially those I have aended almost every year in the past. Instead, I focus more of my time on constituent services. 2024-04-09 Meeting on Wolfe Road Housing Project with Eden Housing and County representative - They have done extensive outreach and taken community input to inform the design to reduce the impact to neighborhoods. - They are actively engaging with CalTran to pursue the alternate emergency exit. They have addressed the issues CalTrain raised as much as they can, but it is still unclear whether the alternate exit is feasible. 2025-04-09 Aended “October 8” film screening by Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Central Pacific ● The full name of the film is “October H8TE – The Fight for the Soul of America”. ● “The film covers the 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses after the October 7 Hamas-led aack on Israel. It describes how "anti-Israel sentiment came to a fever pitch in the immediate aftermath of the massacre" and argues such sentiment "morphed into antisemitism". (wikipedia) 2025-04-10 Meeting on the Westport Senior Living project - with Related and the Planning Commission Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen - They presented their proposed modifications due to the reality of the economic situations. - Highlights from the Project Description: • Modify the approved senior assisted living dwelling unit count to 136 dwelling units • Eliminate the basement-level parking garage; • Reduce the ground floor retail in Building 1 to 4,000 square feet; and • Waive application of the Park Land Dedication Fee - They received strong community concerns on the parking issue and they are exploring options to add more parking spaces. The community also is not happy with the significant reduction in retail space. - See the April 22 Planning Commission Agenda for more details and watch the video for the motion approved by the Planning Commission to consider the option to provide 8,000 sqft retail with an incentive for parkland fee waiver. 2025-04-10 Meeting on the Stevens Creek Office Center (20807-20883 Stevens Creek Blvd) project (Offices behind Panera Bread) - with Harvest Properties, Inc. and the Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao - They plan to develop townhomes on the side, which will replace the retail building, where Panera Bread is located. - “ Development of 122-units (66 small-lot single family and 56 townhomes), including 24 affordable units, to replace three office buildings and one retail building on a 6.93-acre site, located close to the northwestern corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd and Saich Way.” (City Westport page) - There will be some moderately sized townhomes and some smaller townhomes. - They received strong community sentiment to preserve the retail building with Panera Bread and Voyager Coffee. They are seriously considering that option. 5 536 CC 05-06-2025 536 of 554 2025-04-11 Meeting with CUSD to consider the potential for the Finch Property - The CUSD Board President has given oral confirmation in March and then wrien confirmation on April 7 that CUSD is interested in selling the Finch Property, whose proceeds will be invested by CUSD in a revenue-generating option. - We communicated that we hope to place the item on the agenda for the Council to consider and Chris Jew, CUSD CFO, will send over documents to help our staff prepare agenda materials. 2025-04-11 Meeting with Claudio Bono, the manager of Cupertino Inn - Mr. Bono proposed the possibility of providing the Cupertino Inn as an extended stay hotel for De Anza students. For double occupancy, the rent will likely be $1000-1500, including weekly cleaning and daily breakfast. - This is might be an affordable option for student housing for De Anza College and he has proposed the idea to the Foothill-De Anza College Board 2025-04-12 Dance in the Plaza (Mayor’s Initiative) at the Civic Plaza, in collaboration with Amazing Taiwan - Multiple dance groups performed and led dances for aendees to follow. - A group from CSTU led a few Indian dances - Art Commissioner Archana Panda led an impromptu Bollywood dance. 2025-04-13 Aended the Cupertino Holi Festival in Memorial Park - organized by Cupertino Chamber of Commerce - Many families aended. Children were having fun coloring each other with the colored power. 2025-04-14 Monthly Chat with Mayor at the Jade Tea Garden - Special Guest from the Sheriff’s Office - Captain Neil Valenzuela sent Lieutenant Shawn Flores to represent him and answer questions. - Residents asked about the Crime reports, which are in fact included with the City Manager’s biweekly newsleer Cupertino Connect. - The weekly crime reports are also available at the Cupertino’s Crime Summary page. - Also check out the Cupertino Crime Dashboard - Lieutenant Shawn Flores confirmed that Cupertino Sheriff does help patrol De Anza College at night through a mutual aid program. A resident asked whether the college compensates Cupertino for the cost. 2025-04-17 Meeting with Stanley Yang, Local 21, and staff representative for the employee union 2025-04-17 Volunteer Appreciation Dinner with CERT, CARE, ARM volunteers and block leaders - A proclamation was presented to them at the April 15 Council Meeting for the Volunteer Week. - About 50 people aended the dinner. Many have served over 10, 20 years and some even served 30 years. - Special thanks to AlphaX for sponsoring the dinner, which I was initially going to cover with Mayor’s Fund. 2025-04-18 Visited the office of AlphaX RE Capital with Planning Commission Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen - AlphaX just moved their headquarters from San Jose to Cupertino. They are proud to be a women-funded, women-led company. - They focus on small scale developments. They are also forming 20-30 entities to provide specialized services, from building ADU, to interior design, for homeowners or small developers. - As a newcomer to Cupertino, they are eager to get involved with the Cupertino Community and support community events. 6 537 CC 05-06-2025 537 of 554 2025-04-18 Aended the Unity Dinner, organized by the Indo-American Community Federation (IACF-USA) in collaboration with India Community Center (ICC) - I was one of the panelists for the panel on AI in Government with former Fremont Mayor Lily May and 4 other industry experts. - Thanks to Terry, the CTO of Cupertino, for bringing me up to date with the use of AI and AI policy in Cupertino. 2025-04-19 TV studio interview with the Cupertino TV Productions (CTVP) team at KMTV studio - CTVP is an all-volunteer team who produce TV award winning TV programs, broadcasted in the Cupertino TV channel - “Cupertino TV Productions (CTVP) is a 50+ club of active individuals sponsored by the City of Cupertino. We produce half hour TV interview shows which are taped at the public access station, KMVT15 Community Media, in Mountain View, CA. Since 1983, we have produced more than 1,200 programs covering a wide variety of topics of interest to the community. Our shows are cablecast on 6 public access TV stations in some 13 communities, and can also be seen on YouTube by at least 32,300 subscribers and more.” (CTVP About page) - This year they are producing a series of programs on the TV government. 2025-04-20 Aended “Mimouna” in the backyard of a resident - The Mimouna is a joyful Moroccan Jewish tradition marking the end of the Passover holiday. The festival is filled with homemade Moroccan sweets and dancing to Arabic/middle eastern music. - “Mimouna is a traditional Maghrebi Jewish celebration dinner that takes place in Morocco, Israel, France, Canada, and other places around the world where Maghrebi Jews live. It is held the day after Passover, marking the return to eating hame (leavened bread), which is forbidden throughout the week of Passover.” (wikipedia) 2025-04-21 Meeting with a representative of the Braver Angel Silicon Valley Alliance - Discussed potential topics for a town hall or workshop as a Mayor’s Initiative - “Braver Angels is a nationwide bipartisan citizens’ movement started in 2016 by a small group of conservatives and liberals who were alarmed by the venom and rancor they were seeing in the political public space. Braver Angels is dedicated to bringing red and blue Americans together in a working alliance to depolarize America.” (Braver Angel’s site) 2025-04-23 Aended the Press Conference for the upcoming Taiwanese Folk Song Concert, hosted by Smiling Raindrop Foundation and Global Federation of Chinese Business Association - The musicians gave a demo with violin, cello and erhu, a Chinese instrument. - Iconic Taiwanese folk songs revived using classic Section 4: Information of Interest to My Constituents: (updated on 4/8) ● Builders’ Remedy (BR) Projects (Status of Projects) ★ BR Projects with incomplete application status (pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1.) ● 20739 Scofield (one block from Faria Elementary School, zoned R1-10): The project will replace one single-family home with 20-unit, 5 story, condominium on 15,004 sqft (0.34 acre) lot ● Vista Heights (near entrance of Linda Vista Park) : The vacant site, zoned 7 538 CC 05-06-2025 538 of 554 RHS, will build 33 units (8 condominiums and 25 single family homes on vacant hillside property of 86.1 acres. ● Upland Way (11841 Upland Way, zoned RHS-70): 6 single family homes, including 2 affordable units, on vacant hillside property of 1.56 acres with average slopes greater than 30% ★ Other active BR projects: ○ Dividend Homes (20085 & 20111 Stevens Creek Blvd), to the east of the Fire Station, on 2.6 acres, zoned R4 and commercial mixed use. The project will replace two existing office buildings with 57 for-sale townhomes., including 12 affordable units. ○ Dividend Homes (20045 & 20065 Stevens Creek Blvd), to the east of the Fire Station, on 1.77 acres, zoned commercial mixed use. The project will replace existing office buildings with 32 for-sale townhomes., including 6 affordable units. ★ Relevant News on the determination of incompleteness for BR projects: ○ “Los Gatos Files Declaratory Relief Action to Resolve Land Use Uncertainty” (Press Release from the City of Los Gatos) ■ “That section [Gov. Code 65941.1] provides that applicants for land use approvals have 90 days after an initial 180-day deadline to submit any missing information needed to complete a formal application for a so-called “builder’s remedy” housing project. That section further stipulates that if the missing information is not submied “within the 90-day period, then the preliminary application shall expire and have no further force or effect.” ■ “In an apparently conflicting reading, in leers dated August 30, 2024 and February 12, 2025, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) stated its view that there is not just one 90-day period but that successive 90-day periods can run indefinitely. By filing this lawsuit, the Town is acting in good faith so that it will know how to comply with the law and ensure it can continue to serve its residents and property owners, while lawfully processing land use applications.” ★ Other docs: ○ The July 25, 2024 info memo, titled “Scofield Drive SB330 Preliminary Application pursuant to Builder’s Remedy”, has information about proposed BR projects and their review process. ● Other Residential Projects - complete applications submied, not yet approved: ○ Pizza Hut/Staples/ Fontana's (20770, 20830, 20840, & 20850 Stevens Creek Blvd). adjacent to the Cupertino Crossroads Shopping Center): on 2.97 acres, zoned commercial mixed use. The project will replace existing retail stores with 59 townhome condominium units across eight, three-story buildings ○ United Furniture (10065 & 10075 Stevens Creek Blvd, across from Vallco), on 2.72 acres, zoned commercial mixed use. The project will replace existing retail stores with 55 townhome condominium units, with 10 ADUs, three-story buildings ○ Stevens Office Center (20813, 20823, 20883 and 20807 Stevens Creek Blvd), on 6.93 acres, zoned commercial mixed use. The project will replace two office buildings and one retail building with 122 for-sale units (66 small-lot single family and 56 townhomes), including 24 affordable units ○ 20865 McClellan Rd: on 0.99 acres, zoned R3TH. The project will replace one single-family home with 27 townhomes, including 4 affordable units, in three-story buildings ○ Evulich Court (10857, 10867, 10877 & 10887 Linda Vista Dr): on 2.53 acres, zoned R3TH. The project will replace 4 single-family homes with 51 townhomes, including 11 affordable units 8 539 CC 05-06-2025 539 of 554 ● Other Residential Projects - SB 330 preliminary application submied, but not complete applications: ○ Wolfe Road Housing Project (10333 N. Wolfe Road): 250-300 total units across the 5-acre property. It will be 100% rental apartments. The affordable housing will benefit those making 80% or less of the area median income (AMI). ■ a full report on our Listening Phase at this link. ■ February 12 Community Co-Creation Event at Collins Elementary School ● Other Residential Projects - Revision of already approved projects: ○ Westport Senior Assisted Living Housing (revision submied): The developer Related has submied a revision to add more units, reduce retail space, remove the underground garage and request a waiver of Parkland dedication Fee. It is going to the Planning Commission in May ■ Previous approval in 2021 and 2024: Westport (21267 Stevens Creek Blvd) ○ Marina Plaza (10145 N. De Anza Blvd, 10118 Bandley Dr.), on 5.1 acres, zoned commercial and mixed use: The project will add more units, slightly reduce retail space, deliver over smaller for-sale starter homes under 1500 sq. ft. and an outdoor amphitheater. ■ Previous approval in 2022L Marina Plaza. ● License Plate Reader Camera - City-operated or personal ones ★ The Council has adopted the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Camera program (Resolution 24-094) in order to alert the police when a license plate with previous record is detected. Some cameras are placed at major roads entering Cupertnio. ★ The residents or businesses can connect your home or business surveillance camera with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. The registration form is at the boom of this page. Section 5: Information Access Useful to My Constituents (not updated): 1. Information Memo posted on the City website: City Council Informational Memos are now available on the City website. The information can be accessed from the City website at cupertino.org/memos and the City Council page. You can also find the page by entering search terms “info memos” at the top of the website. ★ Anyone may use the eNotification signup to receive informational memo updates by email. ★ The info memos are now hosted in the digital archive as all other city records. ★ Click “+” to zoom in. ★ On a laptop: ○ To open the document as PDF, click on the Print icon and then click on “Download & Print”. The downloaded PDF will appear in a new tab for viewing. ○ This does not work on Safari browser on an iPhone. ★ To copy and paste text, you must open it as PDF and then copy & paste from there. New memos posted, since last report: ● No new info memos published since February 28 9 540 CC 05-06-2025 540 of 554 ● Recordings of Commission Meetings: Starting in June, commission meetings will be recorded for viewing later, although no teleconferencing to allow remote participation. - Find the recordings here under each commission. 4. How to Search an agenda item: A community member showed me a way to search for items on the past city meetings: ● Go to this page: hps://cupertino.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx ○ Make sure that “Calendar” is selected from the top row of tabs and the “List View” is selected from the boom row of tabs. ○ Enter the search term, such as “investment report”. Choose the year or select “All Years” 10 541 CC 05-06-2025 541 of 554 1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember J.R. Fruen Report Dates: 4/8/25 to 4/28/25 Item Date, Title, and Description: Event 1. April 9, 2025 – Meeting with Property Owners re 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard – I met with representatives of the property owners of 20807-20883 Stevens Creek Boulevard with respect to their pending application to develop the site to replace existing office space with new housing. I emphasized the community value of the retail tenants presently on the site (Panera and Voyager Coffee). It was a productive conversation. Event 2. April 9, 2025 – Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board Meeting – I took part in this meeting in my capacity as Cupertino’s representative on the JPA Board of SVCE. Meeting materials are available here. Event 3. April 10, 2025 – Cities Association of Santa Clara County JPA Legislative Action Committee Meeting – I chaired this meeting of the Cities Association Legislative Action Committee in my capacity as 2nd Vice President of the JPA. The LAC received briefing from Townsend Public Affairs on Sen. Becker’s SB 457 and Asm. Papan’s AB 650. Both would institute reforms for the Housing Element development and certification process. The LAC voted to support SB 457 and deferred action on AB 650 pending additional review of the legislation. I stayed for the Cities Association Board meeting immediately afterward to present an update on the LAC to the Board. Materials for this meeting are available at the Cities Association website here. Event 4. April 13, 2025 – Citizens for Better Community Gala – I attended the annual gala celebration of Citizens for Better Community in Fremont. More information on CBC is available at their website: https://www.cbcsfbay.org/ 542 CC 05-06-2025 542 of 554 City Council Councilmember Report 2 Event 5. April 24, 2025 – Cities Association of Santa Clara County JPA Executive Committee Meeting – I attended the Executive Committee meeting of the CASCC in my capacity as 2 nd Vice President of the organization. Among the items we discussed was a reformed process for setting the LAC and Board meeting agendas. The tentative bill consideration list for the LAC’s next meeting includes confirmation of support for SB 457 (which has since been amended), and taking positions on AB 650 (Papan), SB 79 (Wiener), and SB 753 (Cortese). Agenda materials for this meeting are available on the CASCC website here. Event 6. April 26, 2025 – Cupertino Cherry Blossom Festival – Together with the entire city council, I attended the annual Cherry Blossom Festival at Memorial Park. Event 7.1 March 28, 2025 – Chefs of Compassion – I attended West Valley Community Services annual fundraiser, Chefs of Compassion. The event raises money for the essential services support work that WVCS performs for families in need in Cupertino and nearby communities. More information is available here: https://www.chefsofcompassion.org/ 1 This event was left off the April 15, 2025, council report. 543 CC 05-06-2025 543 of 554 1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Sheila Mohan Report Dates: 4/8/25 to 4/29/25 Item Date, Title, and Description: 4/8/25: I participated in a zoom meeting with members for IFTPE Local 21 to answer questions about the City’s budget situation, and the process we will be following to finalize the FY 25-26 budget in June 2025. 4/8/25: I attended a meeting with the team from the Wolfe Road Educator Work Force Housing Development at which I was provided an update on their plans to submit a design to the City in June and the roles of the various stakeholders in the development, such as Caltrans, Sand Hill, County Fire, the County, and the City. 4/9/25: As a member of the Santa Clara County Library District Board, I attended the Finance committee meeting. Staff presented a draft of the upcoming budget document. There was discussion on the uncertainty of federal funds, and the need to conserve reserves to prepare for any eventuality. 4/13/25: Participated in the 2025 Holi Festival of Colors organized by the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce at Memorial Park. As always, there was community participation, tossing of color, and food trucks for one of the biggest and most enjoyable community events held in the city. 4/23/25: Attended a breakfast meeting of the Optimists Club. I was the featured speaker and gave the group a brief overview of City issues and answered questions from the group about goings-on in the City. 544 CC 05-06-2025 544 of 554 City Council Councilmember Report 2 4/24/25: Attended the Joint Powers Meeting of the Santa Clara County Library District. The upcoming budget was discussed and feedback from the Finance Committee was provided. Staff also talked about a new initiative, the Imagination Library in partnership with partner organizations including the Dolly Parton Foundation. 4/26/25: Attended the 2025 Cherry Blossom Festival and as always, enjoyed seeing the effort that went into organizing such a large event, which included recognition of elected officials, art and crafts booths, parade of teen pageant participants, dance and music performances and food. The Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister City group deserves credit for hosting this event. 4/26/25: I spent some time with County Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga , who has jurisdiction over Cupertino. We talked about the unhoused population issues, recently issued fire hazard information, and the proposed medical clinic at De Anza College. The extreme budget shortfall facing the County is their prime concern, and our questions will likely take a back seat for now 545 CC 05-06-2025 545 of 554 1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT Meeting: May 6, 2025 Reporting Councilmember: Vice Mayor Kitty Moore Report Dates: 3/25/25 to 4/28/25 Item Date, Title, and Description: March 25, 2025. Budget and Finance check-in meeting. March 26, 2025. CIP Policy meeting. March 26, 2025. CASCC Executive meeting. Attended as member of the public. March 27, 2025. Tour Cityline development. March 27, 2025. Meet with CUSD Superintendent Yao with 4th of July Subcommittee RE availability of site for fireworks. March 27, 2025. CIP Budget review. April 1, 2025. Budget and Finance check-in meeting. April 2, 2025. City Council meeting. April 5, 2025. Tree planting volunteer event. April 5, 2025. Earth and Arbor Day Festival. April 7, 2025. 1:1 staff meeting. 546 CC 05-06-2025 546 of 554 City Council Vice Mayor Moore Report 2 April 8. 2025. Budget and Finance check-in meeting. April 9, 2025. SCB Housing project meeting for project proposal at Panera site. April 9, 2025. Wolfe Road teacher housing project meeting. April 10, 2025. VTA PAC meeting. April 10, 2025. CASCC LAC meeting. April 10, 2025. CASCC Board meeting. April 11, 2025. Finch property meeting. April 14, 2025. Mayor Chao coffee chat at Jade Garden. April 17, 2025. Meeting debriefing. April 17, 2025. Budget and Finance check-in. April 17, 2025. Budget public meeting. April 18, 2025. City interview. April 21, 2025. Agenda review with Mayor Chao and staff. April 22, 2025 – April 25, 2025. In Sacramento for CalCities City Leaders Summit 2025. Virtually watched Planning Commission meeting. Met with Assembly Member Patrick Ahrens. Participated in the Member Rally and Press Conference in Capitol Park. Attended lunch in the CalCities office building. Attended legislative Session on Proposition 36 (needs funding), Homelessness encampments, California State Budget, and Wildfires and disasters. Attended networking breakfast, Aligning Goal Setting and the Performance Evaluation Process, Speed Sessions: When Public Comment Crosses the Line by John Funk, City Atty. City of Downey, Unofficial Guide to Surviving and Thriving 547 CC 05-06-2025 547 of 554 City Council Vice Mayor Moore Report 3 in Public Office, and Today’s Roadmap to Economic Development: Climate Action, Zoning, and Housing. Attended networking lunch. Attended Building Communities of Trust: How Cities Can Bridge the Trust Divide. Attended virtual meeting with City Staff. Attended California’s Economic Outlook: Navigating the Future with Data-Driven Insights. Attended Networking Breakfast. Met with Cupertino’s lobbyist with LAC member, Councilmember Wang. Materials for the Summit are here (provided as courtesy): Session Materials • Advocacy Priority Pamphlet • Advocacy Priorities Resource Page • Addressing Climate and Environmental Inequities in Black Communities • Aligning Goal Setting and the Performance Evaluation Process - Best Practices to Retain Top Executive Talent • Bridging Prosperity - Leveraging the Synergy Between Housing, Commerce, and Public Spaces to Create Thriving Communities • California's Economic Outlook - Navigating the Future with Data-Driven Insights • California State Budget - Potential Outcomes of Federal Budget Cuts • Earning Public Trust - Practical Strategies for Transparent and Effective Leadership • Gangs Out of Downey (GOOD) - A Crime Prevention Model • General Session Briefing - Budget and Advocacy Update 2025 • Navigating PFAS Litigation - Securing Municipal Remediation Funds • Partners in Local Governance - Strength, Continuity, Leadership in Modern Local Government • Today’s Roadmap to Economic Development - Climate Action, Zoning, & Housing • Unofficial Guide to Surviving and Thriving in Elected Office • What Happens When Reporters Leave Your Town--And What To Do About It • What Makes Each Generation Want to Vote • When Public Comment Crosses the Line April 26, 2025. Attended Cupertino Cherry Blossom Festival. April 26, 2025. Attended 110th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide Remembrance with various electeds. April 27, 2025. Attended and spoke at the Pahalgam Vigil at San Jose City Hall with various elected. 548 CC 05-06-2025 548 of 554 1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT Meeting: April 29, 2025 Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember R "Ray" Wang Report Dates: 4/7/25 to 4/29/25 Item Date, Title, and Description: 1. 4/13/2025, Chamber of Commerce Holi celebrations . Attended and participated in the Holi celebrations at Quinlan/Memorial Park. 2. 4/13/2025, 1:1 Meeting with City Manager . Discussed resident complaints with City Manager. Reviewed list of CIP projects. 3. 4/15/2025, Meeting with Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga. Discussed opportunities for collaboration and cooperation. 4. 4/15/2025, City Council Meeting. Attended the Closed Session and Regular Session meeting. 5. 4/21/2025, 1:1 Meeting with City Manager . Discussed resident complaints with City Manager. Discussed state of Fourth of July firework plans. 6. 4/24/2025 – 4/25/2025. League of Cities, City Leaders Meeting. Attended the annual event in Sacramento. Spoke with other leaders for best practices ideas. 7. 4/25/2025. Meeting with Jason Gonsalves and Kitty Moore . Introduced the Legislative Action Committee with the City’s firm. Discussed the state of legislation in Sacramento and pending bills that may impact Cupertino. 549 CC 05-06-2025 549 of 554 City Council Councilmember Report 2 8. 4/26/2025, Cherry Blossom Festival. Attended the festival opening ceremonies. Toured the booths. 550 CC 05-06-2025 550 of 554 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13906 Agenda Date: 5/6/2025 Agenda #: 17. Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 4/30/2025Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™551 CC 05-06-2025 551 of 554 Upcoming Draft Agenda Items CITY OF CUPERTINO City Council Thursday, May 15, 2025 Study SessionStudy Session 25-13714 Subject: Initial Study Session on Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Proposed Budget Tuesday, May 20, 2025 Study Session 25-13658 Subject: Review of City Commissions and Committees roles and responsibilities, restoring Environmental Review Committee and expanding Audit Committee Ceremonial Items 25-13637 Subject: Recognition of Public Works Week from May 18-24, 2025 Consent Calendar 24-13556 Subject: Approve the execution of agreements to provide post-colleciton services for garbage and construction and demolition materials. (Ursula Syrova - PW) 24-13590 Subject: Approval of May 6, 2025 City Council minutes 25-13725 Subject: Approval of an amendment to OpenGov Contract 25-13743 Subject: Award a contract to XXX for Ceramics and Art Instruction Services at the Wilson Park Building for a total not-to-exceed amount of $XXX. 25-13744 Subject: Award a contract to XXX for Math Olympiads Instruction Services at the Creekside Park Building for a total not-to-exceed amount of $XXX. 25-13799 Subject: Setting a hearing date of June 17, 2025 to declare brush with potential fire hazard a public nuisance and for objections to proposed removal through the Cupertino Brush Abatement Program (Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area); and adopting a resolution declaring properties as having potential fire hazards from brush and authorizing removal (Postponed on March 4, 2025) 25-13925 Subject: Second reading of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 pertaining to Removal of Closed Session Start Time and Clarification that Meetings Rescheduled Due to Holidays or Elections Retain Regular Meeting Status Page 1 Printed on 4/30/2025 DR A F T 552 CC 05-06-2025 552 of 554 Wednesday, April 30, 2025 25-13946 Subject: Internal Audit Workplan 25-13947 Subject: Investment Policy Future Agenda Items 25-13907 Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report Action Calendar 25-13865 Subject: A Resolution reestablishing the Legislative Review Committee 25-13866 Subject: A Resolution approving amendments to the City Council Procedures Manual 25-13713 Subject: Receive the City Manager's Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25 Councilmember Reports 24-13571 Subject: Councilmember Reports Wednesday, May 28, 2025 Commission InterviewsCommission Interviews 25-13926 Subject: Placeholder - Audit Committee Interviews Tuesday, June 3, 2025 Study SessionStudy Session 25-13921 Subject: BMR Anti-Displacement Policy Study Session (Mayor added during agenda review on 4/21/25) Ceremonial Items 25-13638 Subject: Recognition of June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month Consent Calendar 25-13704 Subject: Approval of Accounts Payable for the periods ending _______ 24-13591 Subject: Approval of May 20, 2025 City Council minutes Public Hearings 25-13653 Subject: Approve the renewal (with no increase) of the 1992 Storm Drain Fee and renewal of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee with a 2.62% increase. (Ursula Syrova - PW) 25-13924 Subject: FY 25-26 Budget Adoption 25-13818 Subject: Adopting an ordinance consistent with statewide criteria based on CAL FIRE publication of revised Local Response Area (LRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. Action Calendar 25-13787 Subject: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Matt Schroeder - PW) Councilmember Reports Page 2 Printed on 4/30/2025 DR A F T 553 CC 05-06-2025 553 of 554 Wednesday, April 30, 2025 24-13572 Subject: Councilmember Reports Presentations 25-13734 Subject: Presentation from Copertino Sister City (4 mins) 25-13736 Subject: Presentation from Hsinchu Sister City (4 mins) Tuesday, June 17, 2025 Study SessionStudy Session 25-13898 Subject: Study Session on changing the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission Consent Calendar 25-13820 Subject: Second Reading of an ordinance consistent with statewide criteria based on CAL FIRE publication of revised Local Response Area (LRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps 24-13592 Subject: Approval of June 3, 2025 City Council minutes 25-13705 Subject: Approval of Accounts Payable for the periods ending _______ Public Hearings 25-13693 Subject: Approval of lien assessment and collection of fees on private parcels resulting from abatement of public nuisance (weeds and/or brush) for the annual Weed and Brush Abatement Programs Action Calendar 24-13307 Subject: Proposed Budget Hearing/Adoption (ASD - Kristina Alfaro) 25-13763 Subject: Approval of Below Market Rate (BMR) Anti-Displacement Policy Councilmember Reports 24-13573 Subject: Councilmember Reports Tuesday, July 1, 2025 Ceremonial ItemsCeremonial Items 25-13639 Subject: Recognition of July as Parks and Recreation Month Consent Calendar 24-13593 Subject: Approval of June 17, 2025 City Council minutes 25-13751 Subject: Capital Improvement Program Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Project (PW - Susan Michael) Councilmember Reports 24-13574 Subject: Councilmember Reports Page 3 Printed on 4/30/2025 DR A F T 554 CC 05-06-2025 554 of 554