HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 02-10-2026 Searchable PacketTuesday, February 10, 2026
6:45 PM
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference; and
Teleconference Location Pursuant to Government Code section 54953 (b)(2);
C-174 Anand Vihar, Delhi, India 110092
Planning Commission
SANTOSH RAO, CHAIR
TRACY KOSOLCHAROEN, VICE CHAIR
DAVID FUNG, COMMISSION MEMBER
SEEMA LINDSKOG, COMMISSION MEMBER
STEVEN SCHARF, COMMISSION MEMBER
IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE MEETING
For more information: (408) 777-3200 | www.cupertino.gov
AGENDA
1
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
OPTIONS TO OBSERVE:
Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following
ways:
1)Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue.
2)Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV.
3)Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.gov/youtube and
www.Cupertino.org/webcast
4)Attend in person at a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov . Code
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda
OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT:
Members of the public wishing to address the City Council may do so in the following
ways:
1)Appear in person for Open Session at Cupertino Community Hall.
A.During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the agenda,
and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment period for
each agendized item.
B.Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of Speaker Cards
is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments, it is helpful for
the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon .
C.Speakers must wait to be called, then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into the
microphone when recognized by the Chair .
D.Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Chair may reduce the
speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item . A
speaker representing a group between 2 and 5 members of the public in attendance may
have up to 2 minutes per group member to speak, up to 10 minutes maximum.
E.Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect any
personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a document
(e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so in
one of the following ways:
a)At the overhead projector at the podium, or
b)E-mail the document to planning@cupertino.gov by 3:00 p.m. and staff will advance the
slides/share the documents during your oral comment .
2)Written Communications as follows:
a.Email comments to planningcommission@cupertino.gov
b.Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: Cupertino PlanningCommission, City
Page 2
2
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
c.Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received by 5:00 p.m. on the day of
the meeting will be included in written communications published and distributed before
the beginning of the meeting.
d.Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received after the 5:00p.m. deadline,
but through the end of the Planning Commission meeting, will be posted to the City ’s
website by the end of the following business day .
3)Teleconference in one of the following ways:
a.Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register in
advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting :
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QnbitLmIRxKQELH_sLkQ0Q
• Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the
webinar.
• Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration . Once recognized,
speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
• Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully : One can
directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their
internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser,
such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer .
b.By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join
the meeting as follows:
i.Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 829 9330 2505
ii.To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6
iii.Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number .
c.Via an H.323/SIP room system:
i. H.323 Information:
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 829 9330 2505
ii. SIP: 82993302505@zoomcrc.com
d.Online via the teleconferencing device (Audio and Video) being used to provide access
to the meeting from a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov . Code
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda .
i.Speakers are required to notify the City Clerk via email to cityclerk@cupertino.gov prior
Page 3
3
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
to noon on the date of the meeting during which they plan to participate and comment from
the remote location noticed to ensure the City Clerk is prepared to accept their comment .
ii.If the teleconferencing device malfunctions impeding access to the meeting from the
remote location, the speaker may alternatively participate via the other options for remote
participation provided above.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND APPOINTMENTS
1.Subject: Election of Planning Chair and Vice Chair and appointments
Elect Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make
appointments to other Commission and Committees.
Staff Report
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2.Subject: Approval of the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
Recommended Action: Approve the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
1 - Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of
copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing
to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the
Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to planning@cupertino .org. Plans
will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.
3.Subject: 2026 Planning Commission meeting schedule
Review the meeting schedule for 2026 (see Attachment 1) and
consider changes.
Staff Report
1 - Planning Commission Meetings 2026 Meeting Schedule
Page 4
4
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
4.Subject: The project consists of the following applications: 1) a Hillside Exception for
grading on slopes exceeding 30% in order to create several flat yard areas, 2) an R-1
Exception for garage design, 3) a Design Review Permit for a new two-story residence
with second story side setbacks of less than 15 feet and a second to first floor area ratio
exceeding 66%, 4) a Minor Residential Permit for a balcony, and 5) a Tree Removal
Permit for the removal and replacement of five Protected native oak trees (ranging in
size between 12-inches DBH to 18-inches DBH) to allow the creation of the flat yard
areas. (Application No(s).: EXC-2025-007, EXC-2025-008, R-2024-029, RM-2024-028,
TR-2024-043; Applicant(s): David Kuoppamaki; Location: 22068 San Fernando Court;
APN(s): 357 12 012)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission:
a. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. Conditionally approve R-2024-029, EXC-2025-007, and TR-2024-043; and
c. Approve EXC-2025-008 and RM-2024-028, based on the Draft Resolutions.
Staff Report
1 - EXC-2025-007 - Draft Resolution (Hillside Exception)
2 - EXC-2025-008 - Draft Resolution (R1 Exception)
3 - R-2024-029 - Draft Resolution (Design Review)
4 - RM-2024-028 - Draft Resolution (Minor Residential)
5 - TR-2024-043 - Draft Resolution (Tree Removal)
6 - Public Comments
7 - Site Plan
OLD BUSINESS - None
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.
5.Subject: Review of the proposed Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation and
determination of the location, purpose, and extent of property disposition for
consistency with the General Plan.
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) finding that the Mary
Avenue public right-of-way vacation (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the General
Plan.
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) finding that the location, purpose, and extent of
the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the
General Plan.
Page 5
5
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution - Vacation
2 - Draft Resolution - Disposition
3 - Map of Parcel
STUDY SESSION
6.Subject: An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a
summary of Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Recommended Action: Receive an update on the development of the Active
Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the agenda packet attachments .
Staff Report
1 - Sep 9, 2025 Staff Report
2 - Revised Prioritization Criteria
3 - Draft Prioritization Results
4 - Revised Program and Policy Recommendations
5 - Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines
6 - Project Effectiveness Guidelines
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for staff to provide any updates on matters pertinent to the
Commission and for Commissioners to report on any Commission related activities they have taken part
in since the prior regularly scheduled meeting.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
This portion of the meeting is reserved for the Chair or any two Commissioners to propose a future
agenda item within the jurisdiction of the Commission. A proposal to add a future agenda item shall be
brief and without discussion by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an
action taken by the Planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed
to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said
appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this
meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should
call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and
writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate
Page 6
6
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located
at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 during normal business hours and in
Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site .
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100, written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do
not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not
wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made
publicly available on the City website.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda,
contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
Page 7
7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14788 Agenda Date: 2/10/2026
Agenda #: 1.
Subject: Election of Planning Chair and Vice Chair and appointments
Elect Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make appointments to other Commission and
Committees.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/5/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
Page 1 of 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308
CUPERTINO.GOV
Planning Commission STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 10, 2026
Subject
Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and appointments
Recommended Actions
Elect Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make appointments to other
Commissions and Committees.
Discussion
Chair and Vice Chair: The Chair and Vice Chair are elected annually among the
Commission members (CMC Section 2.32.0401). The term for Chair and Vice Chair is for
one year. While any Commissioner can be nominated and elected as the Chair, most times,
the Vice Chair has been selected as the Chair by fellow Commissioners. The selection for
Vice Chair has historically been based on seniority with rotation among Commissioners.
The current Commissioners are listed below in order of term appointment and rotation:
Name Term Date of Appointment Date Term Ending
Steven Scharf Second January 2025 January 2029
David Fung First January 2023 January 2027
Seema Lindskog First January 2023 January 2027
Tracy Kosolcharoen First January 2025 January 2029
Santosh Rao First January 2025 January 2029
Other Commission and Committee and Mayor’s Meeting Appointments:
Housing Commission Non-Voting Representative: The Planning Commission usually selects
a Commissioner to attend Housing Commission meetings in order to provide a brief
summary of Housing Commission matters during the “Commission Reports” portion of
the Planning Commission Agenda to keep the Commission informed. A Planning
1 1 CMC Section 2.32.040: The commission shall elect its Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson from among
its members. The terms of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be for one year.
9
Page 2 of 2
Commissioner appointee who attends a Housing Commission meeting is not a voting
member and there is no associated term of office. Usually, the selection to be the Housing
Commission attendee is determined by the level of interest of a particular Planning
Commissioner. However, a selection is not required, and any Commissioner may attend
a Housing Commission meeting since they are public meetings. Commissioner Lindskog
was selected to be the Housing Commission representative for the past year.
Economic Development Committee Representative: The City Council re-established the
Economic Development Committee (EDC) on April 15, 2025, with a requirement to have
representatives from several business sectors and commissions, including a requirement
to have two councilmember representatives.2 On July 15 2025, the City Council changed
the composition of the Committee to having one representative each from the City
Council and Planning Commission instead of two councilmember representatives.3 The
EDC will meet quarterly, unless special meetings are called. The initial term of the
representative was established to be until January 30, 2026. Commissioner Kosolcharoen
was appointed as the EDC representative for this initial term which ended on January 30,
2026.
Each subsequent representative serves on a one year term ending January 30 of each
calendar year or until a successor is appointed (usually in conjunction with the election of
the Chair and Vice Chair at the first meeting in February). At this time, the Planning
Commission should select an EDC representative for the first full year term. Upon
appointment, the representative will be provided additional information by appropriate
city staff.
The Mayor's Meeting with Commissioners: Among other meetings of note and as
information, the Mayor’s meeting is a bi-monthly meeting to report on Planning
Commission matters. The meeting format alternates between in-person and remote
attendance. Information is shared from the City Manager’s Office on these meetings. The
meetings must be attended by the Chair. If the Chair is unavailable, the Vice-Chair may
attend on behalf of the Chair. If neither is available, an alternate commissioner may be
chosen to attend. This can be done on an as-needed basis, and no action is required at this
time.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Reviewed and Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of
Community Development
2 See Ordinance No. 25-2269 online here:
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1168800&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino
3 See Agenda Item: https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7476647&GUID=F7BF3F4E -
3941-4592-B381-4A899A6DE4CD&Options=&Search=. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25-2273
conducted on a 5-0 vote on 7/16/2025 by Council. Ordinance effective date: 30 days after second reading.
10
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14841 Agenda Date: 2/10/2026
Agenda #: 2.
..Title
Subject:Approval of the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
Approve the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/5/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™11
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 9, 2025
At 6:45 p.m. Chair Santosh Rao called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order and
led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre
Avenue and via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Santosh Rao, Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, and Commissioners Seema Lindskog,
David Fung, and Steven Scharf. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approval of the November 12, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
Recommended Action: Approve the November 12, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
MOTION: Lindskog moved and Scharf seconded to approve the November 12, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao,
Kosolcharoen, Fung, Lindskog, Scharf Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Subject: Consideration of a new residential development of 57 townhomes, including
11 affordable units, to replace two office buildings on a 2.6-acre site, located close to the
northeast corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd and Randy Lane.
(Application No(s): DP-2025-001, ASA-2024-016, TM-2024-010, TR-2024-045, &
U-2025-006; Applicant(s): Dividend Homes; Location: 20085 & 20111 Stevens Creek
Blvd. (A.P.N.: 316-23-025, -026)
Recommended Action: Staff recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the draft
resolutions recommending that the City Council:
1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
2. Approve the following permits:
a. Development Permit (DP-2025-001) (Attachment 1);
12
Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2025
b. Use Permit (U-2025-006) (Attachment 2);
c. Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-016) (Attachment 3);
d. Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-010) (Attachment 4)
e. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-045) (Attachment 5)
Chair Rao opened the Public Hearing and the floor to ex-parte disclosures.
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly introduced Senior Planner
Gian Martire, who gave a presentation.
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly introduced the applicant, who
gave a presentation.
Commissioners asked questions which staff and the applicant responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Whitney McNair
• Todd McNair
• Jennifer Griffin
• Jerry Su
• Wayne Gong
• Rich Lordan
• Ed Hsiao
• Lisa Lee
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Chair Rao closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Kosolcharoen moved and Fung seconded to move the staff recommended action
with the modification to reduce the 4 units that are abutting Wheaton drive to two floors,
include hedges along the back, and consider additional trellising on the fences on the back wall.
The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung, Lindskog.
Noes: Scharf. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
At 8:23 p.m., Chair Rao recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:29 p.m. with all
Commissioners present.
3. Subject: Consider a new residential development of 32 townhomes, including 6
affordable units, to replace three office buildings on a 1.77-acre site, located mid-block
13
Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2025
corner on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Randy Lane and Blaney Avenue.
(Application No(s): DP-2025-002, ASA-2025-004, TM-2025-002, TR-2025-002, &
U-2025-007; Applicant(s): Dividend Homes; Location: 20045 & 20065 Stevens Creek
Blvd. (A.P.N.: 316-23-095, -096)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolutions
recommending that the City Council:
1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
2. Approve the following permits:
a. Development Permit (DP-2025-002) (Attachment 1);
b. Use Permit (U-2025-007) (Attachment 2);
c. Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2025-004) (Attachment 3);
d. Tentative Final Map (TM-2025-002) (Attachment 4)
e. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2025-002) (Attachment 5)
Chair Rao opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Gian Martire gave a presentation.
The applicant spoke.
Commissioners asked questions which staff and the applicant responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Whitney McNair
• Todd McNair
• Jennifer Griffin
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Chair Rao closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Rao moved and Lindskog seconded to move the staff recommended action with the
modification to reduce the 4 units that are abutting Wheaton drive to two floors, include hedges
along the back, and consider additional trellising on the fences on the back wall. The motion
carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung, Lindskog, Scharf. Noes:
None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS - None
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS –
14
Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2025
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly confirmed the date of the next
Planning Commission meeting and highlighted the upcoming Planning Commissioners Academy,
inviting Commissioners to indicate if they wished to register.
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly noted that a dozen housing projects
were forthcoming under AB130, with one scheduled for late January and one or two additional
projects anticipated in February.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING – None
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:18 p.m. Chair Rao adjourned the Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
15
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14793 Agenda Date: 2/10/2026
Agenda #: 3.
Subject: 2026 Planning Commission meeting schedule
Review the meeting schedule for 2026 (see Attachment 1) and consider changes.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/5/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™16
Page 1 of 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
Subject
2026 Planning Commission meeting schedule
Recommended Action
Review the meeting schedule for 2026 (see Attachment 1) and consider changes.
Discussion
The Municipal Code sets regular Planning Commission meetings on the second and
fourth Tuesdays of each month at 6:45 p.m. Meetings can be adjourned to a date certain.
Meetings can be cancelled for lack of business pursuant to the Brown Act (Section 54955 -
54955.1 and 54956). Should the Commission decide to cancel any meetings now, a Special
Meeting may be held, as needed (CMC Section 2.32.050(A)1).
The regular meeting schedule for the 2026 calendar year (see Attachment 1) has been
attached, with potential dates of conflict identified. Things to note in the calendar are:
1. The City Council’s Procedures Manual establishes the month of August to be an
annual recess period and therefore, no meetings are held in August. In order to
align with the Council meeting schedule, in 2023, 2024 and 2025, the Planning
Commission decided to take a recess as well.
2. The Municipal Code Section 2.32.050(A) requires that Planning Commission
meetings that fall on legal holidays be moved to the following day .2 Since regular
meetings occur on Tuesday, this would cause the meeting to be scheduled for a
Wednesday.
3. In addition, the following meeting dates occur following a scheduled holiday, in
the event the Commission wishes to consider flexibility in personal time off
1 CMC Section 2.32.050(A): The City Planning Commission shall hold regular meetings on the second and
fourth Tuesdays of each month at six forty-five p.m. and may adjourn any regular meeting to a date
certain, which shall be specified in the order of adjournment and when so adjourned, such adjourned
meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. Such adjourned meetings may likewise be adjourned
and any so adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes.
City Planning Commission meetings that fall on legal holidays shall automatically be moved to the
following day.
2 Ibid.
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
17
Page 2 of 2
scheduling since there may be issues with obtaining a quorum for these meetings:
▪ May 26th (day after Memorial Day)
▪ September 8th (day after Labor Day)
▪ November 24th (2 days before Thanksgiving) – cancelled by Planning
Commission (5-0) in 2024 and 2025
▪ December 23rd (2 days before Christmas Eve) – cancelled by Planning
Commission (5-0) in 2024 and 2025
Staff recommends that the Commission decide whether to cancel any meetings and
adopt the 2026 meeting schedule.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Reviewed: Michael Woo, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community
Development
Attachments:
1 – Planning Commission 2026 meeting schedule
18
Planning Commission Meetings 2026
January
1/1/2026: New Year’s Day
1 13/2026: Planning Commission Meeting- Canceled
1/19/2026: Martin Luther King’s Birthday
1/27/2026: Planning Commission Meeting - Canceled
February
2/10/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
2/16/2026: President’s Day
2/17/2026: Lunar New Year
2/24/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
March
3/10/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
3/24/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
3/31/2026: Cesar Chavez’s Birthday
April
414/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
4/28/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
May
5/12/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
5/25/2026: Memorial Day
5/26/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
June
6/09/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
6/19/2026: Juneteenth
6/23/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
July
7/3/2026: Independence Day
7/14/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
7/28/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
August
8/11/2026: Planning Commission Meeting – Council Recess (cancelled in 2023, 2024,
2025)
8/25/2026: Planning Commission Meeting – Council Recess (cancelled in 2023, 2024,
2025)
September
9/7/2026: Labor Day
9/8/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
19
9/22/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
October
10/13/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
10/27/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
November
11/10/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
11/11/2026: Veteran’s Day
11/24/2026: Planning Commission Meeting – cancelled in 2024 and 2025
11/26/2026: Thanksgiving Day
11/27/2026: Day Following Thanksgiving Day
December
12/8/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
12/22/2026: Planning Commission Meeting – cancelled in 2024 and 2025
12/24/2026: Christmas Eve
12/25/2026: Christmas Day
12/31/2026: New Years Eve
20
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14844 Agenda Date: 2/10/2026
Agenda #: 4.
Subject:The project consists of the following applications:1)a Hillside Exception for grading on
slopes exceeding 30%in order to create several flat yard areas,2)an R-1 Exception for garage
design,3)a Design Review Permit for a new two-story residence with second story side setbacks of
less than 15 feet and a second to first floor area ratio exceeding 66%,4)a Minor Residential Permit
for a balcony,and 5)a Tree Removal Permit for the removal and replacement of five Protected native
oak trees (ranging in size between 12-inches DBH to 18-inches DBH)to allow the creation of the flat
yard areas.(Application No(s).:EXC-2025-007,EXC-2025-008,R-2024-029,RM-2024-028,TR-2024
-043; Applicant(s): David Kuoppamaki; Location: 22068 San Fernando Court; APN(s): 357 12 012)
That the Planning Commission:
a. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. Conditionally approve R-2024-029, EXC-2025-007, and TR-2024-043; and
c. Approve EXC-2025-008 and RM-2024-028, based on the Draft Resolutions.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/5/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™21
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 10, 2026
SUBJECT
The project consists of the following applications: 1) a Hillside Exception for grading on
slopes exceeding 30% in order to create several flat yard areas, 2) an R-1 Exception for
garage design, 3) a Design Review Permit for a new two-story residence with second-
story side setbacks of less than 15 feet and a second to first floor area ratio exceeding 66%,
4) a Minor Residential Permit for a balcony, and 5) a Tree Removal Permit for the removal
and replacement of five Protected native oak trees (ranging in size between 12-inches
DBH to 18-inches DBH) to allow the creation of the flat yard areas. (Application No(s).:
EXC-2025-007, EXC-2025-008, R-2024-029, RM-2024-028, TR-2024-043; Applicant(s): David
Kuoppamaki; Location: 22068 San Fernando Court; APN(s): 357 12 012) 1
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
That the Planning Commission:
a. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b. Conditionally approve R-2024-029, EXC-2025-007, and TR-2024-043; and
c. Approve EXC-2025-008 and RM-2024-028, based on the Draft Resolutions.
DISCUSSION
Project Data:
General Plan
Designation:
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Ac.)
Zoning Designation: R-1-7.5 (Single-family residential with a minimum lot area of
7,500 sq. ft.)
Net Lot Area 6,735 sq. ft. (0.16 acres)
Project Data Allowed Proposed
Floor Area 3,030.75 sq. ft. 3,030 sq. ft.
1 This item was previously agendized for a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 27,
2026, which was subsequently canceled. The meeting materials for this item are substantially similar but
have been updated to reflect changes proposed by the applicant as they relate to proposed on-site
grading.
22
Project Data Allowed Proposed
Floor Area Ratio 45% 45%
Second to First Floor
Area Ratio
66%* 81%*
Building Height 28 feet 26 feet, 9 inches
Grading Quantity
(cubic yards)
2,500 cubic yards max.
(excluding basements)
420 cubic yards
Total Flat Yard Area 2,500 square feet max.
(excluding driveways)
~1,200 square feet
Setbacks Required Proposed
1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor
Front Setback 20’ 25’ 21’-8” 25’
Side Setbacks
Min.: 5’
Combined: 15’
Min.: 10’*
Combined: 25’
Left: 5’
Right: 10’-3”
Combined:
15’-3”
Left*: 13’
Right*: 12’-3”
Combined:
25’-3”
Rear Setback 20’ 25’ 37’-11” 41’-1”
Project Consistency with:
General Plan: Yes, as conditioned
Zoning: Yes, as conditioned (if exception is approved)
Notes:
* A Design Review Permit is required for residences with a second to first floor area ratio of more than
66% and/or second story side setbacks of less than 15 feet. As this project proposes both a second to first
floor area ratio of more than 66% and second story side setbacks of less than 15 feet, a Design Review
Permit has been required.
Background:
The project site (Figure 1) is located on a cul-
de-sac, San Fernando Court, within the
Monta Vista neighborhood in a Single-
Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. At
present, the project site is occupied with a
small one-story residence built in the 1950s
and is adjacent to a mix of comparable,
older one-story homes and larger two-story
homes built in recent decades. The rear of
the property adjoins Blackberry Farm Park.
The purpose of the R-1 district is to create,
preserve and enhance areas suitable for Figure 1: Site Aerial
23
detached, single-family dwellings. The 6,735-square-foot lot was created through a
subdivision in 1942 when the property was part of Santa Clara County. The lot is mostly
flat, with a significant (59%) downward slope in the rear.
The applicant, David Kuoppamaki, is proposing the demolition of the existing residence
and the construction of a new, contemporary-type designed, 3,030-square-foot, two-
story, single-family residence with a balcony. The proposal also includes grading of the
rear yard to create a flat yard area. Please refer to Attachment 7 for the site plan.2
Analysis:
Design Review and Minor Residential Permits
The proposed residence has second story side setbacks of less than 15 feet and a second
to first floor area ratio of more than 66 percent. As such, a Two-Story Design Review
Permit is required. The addition of a balcony also requires a Minor Residential Permit to
ensure neighbor notification and review of proposed privacy measures.
While these permits are typically reviewed and approved at a staff level, the application
is being brought forward for Planning Commission approval in accordance with
Cupertino Municipal Code (“CMC”) Section 19.04.090. This Municipal Code section
notes that applications for land use entitlements may be combined in one application for
purpose of review and approval and that, in the event of such combination, the reviewing
body having final approval over the combined application shall be the highest body in
the City which must approve any element to the combined application.
Per CMC Section 19.28.110, projects that are subject to Design Review must meet the
City’s single-family design principles, which include a requirement that the proposed
design provide an identifiable architectural style that is reasonably compatible with the
predominant neighborhood design pattern. To ensure that these architectural design
requirements are met, staff refers projects subject to Design Review to an architectural
firm, RRM Design Group (“RRM”), that has been selected by the City for this purpose.
Through this permit’s review, RRM provided recommended feedback on the proposed
design, including that “the proposed design is not consistent with the predominant
neighborhood pattern and is not included as a preferred style in CMC 19.28.110,
Appendix A.” RRM specified that the proposed flat roof design contributed to building
massing that is disproportionate to the existing neighborhood pattern. While the
2 Government Code Section 65103.5 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 state law may make an appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City
Hall by sending an email to planning@cupertino.gov.
24
applicant has attempted to work with staff to address RMM’s design comments, , the
applicant’s revisions do not address comments related to the building’s massing and flat
roof design.
While the City allows flat roofs for some two-story residences, this allowance is based on
the existing pattern of roof designs in the neighborhood where the flat-roofed residence
is proposed, as well as the reduction of the new construction’s second story massing. As
only one single-story residence with a flat roof is within a 500-foot radius of the proposed
residence, staff could not find that the new flat roof matched the “predominant
neighborhood pattern.”
As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the residence, subject
to the conditions that the applicant revise the design to reduce building mass by: 1)
lowering the building height to ensure that all portions of the first story fit within the
required first story building envelope, and 2) adding sloped roof elements to a minimum
of 25% of the first story and 50% of the second story.
R-1 Exception
The applicant is also seeking an R-1 Exception to allow the proposed residence to include
an attached garage that is located closer to the street than the living area. The City’s R-1
design principles require that usable living area, not including any architectural feature,
porch, or patio, shall be a minimum of two feet closer to the street than the garage. This
requirement is intended to reduce the apparent mass or size of garages on new single-
family residences. This requirement, however, cannot always be met due to lot
constraints on the proposed development. In these instances, an R-1 Exception may be
approved to allow deviation from the City’s design standard.
In this case, the applicant proposes that the garage be located in front of the living area
to accommodate development within the existing flat areas of the lot and to accommodate
required side setbacks. The lot has a significant slope starting approximately 40 feet from
the rear property line. The lot also features a curved front property line, as it adjoins the
terminus of the cul-de-sac. Thus, requiring that the garage be setback behind the living
area would lead to a portion of the proposed residence being located on the steeply
sloping portion of the lot.
Due to the topography, many residences in the immediate neighborhood were
constructed with a garage configuration similar to what is proposed; at least five other
homes on the cul-de-sac have a garage that is located in front of or in alignment with the
residence’s living area. The proposed garage is also in alignment with the existing
driveway opening, keeping with existing driveway pattern of the neighborhood.
25
With consideration given to the existing neighborhood pattern as well as the grade
restrictions of the lot, staff recommends approval of this R-1 Exception (EXC-2025-008) to
allow for a garage that is located closer to the street than the living area.
Hillside Exception
The R-1 Ordinance, referencing the standards of the RHS Ordinance, CMC Chapter 19.40,
prohibits any structures or improvements over 500 square feet in area on slopes greater
than 30%, unless an exception is granted. The intent of the requirement is to minimize
and discourage unnecessary hillside grading activities and visual disturbances.
However, if the project/property presents unique circumstances or hardships (typically
physical/topographic challenges), the City may consider an exception provided that the
project is designed to minimize the extent of the exception and impacts to the
surrounding hillside and public views. The City has historically granted exceptions to
allow some development of steeper hillside properties planned for residential or allowed
accessory uses.
While much of the subject property is relatively flat, the rear 40 feet of the property has
an average slope of 59%. Therefore, almost any development or grading on the rear of
the property will require the City to consider a hillside exception request. This rear area
also contains 12 native Coast Live Oak trees, six with a trunk diameter at breast height
(“DBH”) of less than 12 inches, five with a DBH between 12 and 24 inches, and one with
a DBH of 36 inches.
The City’s Protected Tree Ordinance, CMC Chapter 14.18, requires a Tree Removal
Permit for the removal of any listed specimen tree with a DBH of 12 inches or more. The
applicant has, therefore, requested the removal of all oak trees on the property with the
exception of the 36-inch oak tree. As these oak trees are considered protected specimens,
a Tree Removal Permit is required for the removal of the five trees with a DBH between
12 and 24 inches.
The proposed residence will be located almost entirely on the existing flat portion of the
property. However, the applicant is requesting a Hillside Exception to allow for grading
in excess of 500 square feet on the 59% slopes to allow for the creation of a usable flat yard
area. While other homes in the neighborhood have been developed with similar flat yard
areas and on similar degrees of slopes, since these homes were originally developed and
graded while located within unincorporated Santa Clara County, they were not subject
to the stricter scrutiny of Cupertino’s hillside regulations, or prior to the adoption of the
applicability of these regulations to the R1 zoning district due to the terrain.
The applicant’s initial proposal included grading of the entire rear yard area of the
property, up to the rear property line with four five-foot tall retaining walls proposed to
26
accommodate an over 2,000 square foot flat rear yard. The RHS zoning code
requirements, which apply to development on slopes greater than 30% on property zoned
R1, allows a maximum of 2,500 square feet of flat yard area (including side, front and rear
yard areas), if it can be reasonably accommodated and due consideration is given to not
over-grade a site.
The initially proposed design posed concerns related to over-grading the site, drainage
and runoff, the visual impact of retaining walls from the adjoining Blackberry Farm Park,
and potential disturbance and compaction within the root zone of the 36-inch oak tree
that is to be retained. While understanding that the applicant wishes to have a flat yard
area, to address the concerns identified the applicant worked with staff to revise the rear
yard design. The proposed smaller flat rear yard area is limited to the area bounded by a
10-foot setback from the rear property line and a five-foot setback from the 36-inch oak
tree dripline as indicated in Figure 2 below. The required 10-foot setback from the rear
property line will allow for drainage and runoff requirements to be met onsite. In
addition, the applicant is proposing that the visible height of any retaining walls not
exceed five feet. Staff recommends approval of the modified Hillside Exception request
to allow the smaller usable flat rear yard area, with a five-foot limitation on the height of
any proposed retaining walls. With these changes, staff believes that the previous
concerns identified are alleviated.
The light blue
area in Figure 2
indicates the
approximate
area (~1,000 sq.
ft.) in which the
flat rear yard
area would be
located, a
reduction of
approximately
50 percent
from the
original
proposal which
included over 2,000 square feet of site work. Additionally, while the property is mostly
screened by existing trees along Stevens Creek Trail, the setback will provide for an
additional area between the retaining walls and the trail, where replacement trees will be
planted, therefore reducing potential visual impacts when viewed from the trail.
Figure 2: Revised Site Plan
27
Staff is recommending approval of the removal of four of the five protected oak trees to
accommodate the modified flat yard area, except one 12-inch oak tree located at the base
of the sloped area which can be reasonably protected through the proposed grading
design with a 10-foot rear setback. The project has also been conditioned to provide
replacement trees, with an added requirement that, to the extent possible, replacement
trees be planted in the rear setback to add to the landscape buffer between the property
and the trail. Should the Commission not approve the Hillside Exception, staff
recommends denial of the Tree Removal Permit.
Geological Review
The property is in a liquefaction-inundation and slope instability hazard zone. The City’s
consulting geologist, Cotton Shires Associates, has peer reviewed the geotechnical and
geologic report submitted by the project geologist, Murray Engineers, Inc., and concludes
that report is reasonable and the project geotechnically feasible. The City’s geologist
recommended that geotechnical plan review and geotechnical construction inspections
occur at the time a Building Permit is processed. The recommendations of the City’s
geologist are incorporated as project conditions of approval.
Cupertino Municipal Code Findings:
The Cupertino Municipal Code includes ‘findings’ for approval of various permits
necessary to approve the proposed project. These provide a framework for making
decisions and facilitating an orderly analysis of the review of a project. The findings for
the Hillside Exception, R1 Exception, Tree Removal Permit, Design Review Permit, and
Minor Residential Permit sought by the applicant that the City must make in rendering a
decision whether to grant an exception on this project have been outlined and responded
to in their respective resolutions (Attachments 1 through 5).
Environmental Assessment:
The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.)
(“CEQA”), together with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) (hereinafter, "CEQA Guidelines"), pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15303. The exemption applies to new construction or conversion of
small facilities or structures, including single-family residences (see CEQA Guidelines §
15303(a)) and none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines
section 15300.2 apply.
28
PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH
The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project:
Public comments related to the project that were received prior to the completion of this
staff report (February 4, 2026) are included as Attachment 6. These comments mainly
related to the proposed extensive rear yard grading proposed prior to modifications to
the grading design made upon staff’s recommendation. With the revisions made, grading
has been reduced as described above, which alleviate the previous concerns about over-
grading and views from the public trail.
A revised site plan reflecting the recommendation has been provided by the applicant
and is provided as Attachment 7.
NEXT STEPS
Should the project be approved, the Planning Commission’s decision on this proposal is
final unless an appeal is filed within 14 calendar days (by February 24, 2026) from the
date of the decision. The applicant may apply for building and other permits at the end
of the appeal period.
This approval expires on February 10, 2028, at which time the applicant may apply for a
one-year extension.
Prepared by: Emi Sugiyama, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community
Development
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Draft Resolution for EXC-2025-007 (Hillside Exception)
2 – Draft Resolution for EXC-2025-008 (R1 Exception)
3 – Draft Resolution for R-2024-029 (Design Review)
4 – Draft Resolution for RM-2024-028 (Minor Residential Permit)
Public Notice Agenda
Site Signage (14 days prior to hearing)
Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least
10 days prior to the hearing)
35 public hearing notices mailed to
property owners within 300 feet (10
days prior to hearing)
Posted on the City’s official notice bulletin
board (at least 72 hours prior to the hearing)
Posted on the City of Cupertino’s website
(at least 72 hours prior to the hearing)
29
5 – Draft Resolution for TR-2024-043 (Tree Removal Permit)
6 – Public Comments
7 – Site Plan
30
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH
CUMULATIVE DISTURBANCE EXCEEDING 500 SQUARE FEET ON
SLOPES GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 30% LOCATED AT 22068 SAN
FERNANDO COURT(A.P.N. 357 12 012)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2025-007
Applicants: David Kuoppamaki
Location: 22068 San Fernando Court; APN: 357 12 012
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A HILLSIDE EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Hillside Exception as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), together with the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.)
(hereinafter, "CEQA Guidelines"), the City staff has independently studied the proposed
Project and has determined that the Project is exempt from environmental review
pursuant to the categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303 for the reasons
set forth in the staff report dated February 10, 2026 and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive public testimony on the Project, including the categorical CEQA
exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303, and reviewed and considered the
information contained in the staff report pertaining to the Project, all other pertinent
31
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 2
documents, and all written and oral statements received by the Planning Commission at
or prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows, with regard to this application,
that:
1. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
area nor be detrimental to public health and safety;
The proposed site is situated on a public road, San Fernando Court. The previously lot is
surrounded by existing single-family residences. A geotechnical study has been conducted for
the proposed project and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant have been
incorporated into the development conditions of the approval. In addition, the development is
required to meet the Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
air quality standards for construction activities. The project is also required to adhere to the
City’s C.3 Municipal Permit for stormwater runoff management. Therefore, the development
will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public
health and safety.
2. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or
vehicular traffic;
The proposed residence will be serviced by an existing driveway located off of San Fernando
Court. The location of the driveway is not unique from the location of the driveways of other
properties that share road. The maintenance of the existing driveway for a replacement single-
family home is not expected to create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
During construction, the developer must also submit a traffic control plan by a Registered
Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control
plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during
construction. Therefore, the development will not create hazardous conditions for pedestrian
or vehicular traffic.
3. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are
available to serve the development;
The property will be accessed by an existing driveway off of San Fernando Court. In addition,
water and sewer connections are already available on the property. The project has been
reviewed by the County Fire Department for fire access and requirements from the Fire
32
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 3
Department have been incorporated into the projects design. Therefore, the development has
legal access to public streets and public services to serve the development.
4. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least
modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this
chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel;
As the rear 40 feet of the parcel is steep, with an average slope of 59%, any development in the
rear 40 feet of the property that would affect more than 500 square feet of the slope (e.g. any
grading for a home, structure, or yard in an area over 500 square feet) would require a Hillside
Exception. The proposed residence is sited on the flattest portion of the lot, adjacent to the
street. The proposed grading for flat yard areas in the rear 40 feet, as conditioned, will follow
the contours of the site to minimize grading, minimize the removal of oak trees and reduce the
visibility of retaining walls necessary on site to develop the property in a manner consistent
with the Residential Hillside ordinance.
Aside from the exception to allow more than 500 square feet of construction on slopes greater
than 30%, the proposed development will comply with all other development regulations of the
RHS and R1 zoning districts including, but not limited to, building height, setbacks, and floor
area. The development, as conditioned, involves the least modification of the prescribed
development regulations necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel.
5. All alternative locations for development on the parcel have been considered and
have been found to create greater environmental impacts than the location of the
proposed development;
The majority of construction has been sited on the existing flat area of the parcel. The proposed
grading on the steeply sloping portion of the site is limited to the addition of flat yard area. The
size of the lot limits the ability to relocate this flat yard area. The siting and design of the
proposed retaining walls for the flat yard areas will follow the contours of the site to minimize
grading. As conditioned, the flat yard area has been designed to minimize the removal of oak
trees and reduce the visibility of all retaining walls necessary to develop the property in a
manner consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance.
Other alternative locations for development on the parcel would result in greater grading on
the site, grading of steeper slopes, an increased removal of additional native trees than
currently proposed, and an increased number and height of retaining walls required to
accommodate the development. The proposed development has been located to minimize
environmental and grading impacts on the site.
6. The proposed development does not consist of structures on or near known geological
or environmental hazards which have been determined by expert testimony to be
33
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 4
unsafe or hazardous to structures or persons residing therein (See General Plan Policy
2-49);
The geotechnical report and peer review do not indicate any conflicts with geological or
environmental hazards. Additionally, recommendations of the geotechnical engineers have
been incorporated into the conditions of approval in order to ensure structural stability of the
proposed building. Therefore, the proposed development does not consist of structures that have
been determined by expert testimony to be unsafe or hazardous to structures or persons
residing therein.
7. The proposed development includes grading and drainage plans which will ensure
that erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary construction of roads,
housing sites, and improvements will be minimized (See General Plan Policies 2-53,
2-54 and 2-57);
The proposed development, as conditioned, follows, as closely as possible, the primary natural
contours of the lot to minimize erosion and scarring of the hillsides caused by necessary
construction of the housing site and improvements. Preliminary drainage and grading plans
have been reviewed, and will continue to be reviewed through the Building Permit process, by
the City Engineer and the City’s consultant geotechnical engineers to ensure the safety of the
development and of those neighboring residences.
8. The proposed development does not consist of structures which would disrupt the
natural silhouette of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage points on the
valley floor unless either:
a. The location of a structure on a ridgeline is necessary to avoid greater negative
environmental impacts; or
b. The structure could not otherwise be physically located on the parcel and the
size of the structure is the minimum which is necessary to allow for a reasonable
use of the parcel (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-47 and 2-48);
The subject site is not located within an identified ridgeline and the highest point of the site is
located approximately 250 feet below and 0.75 miles away from the nearest ridgeline. Thus,
the proposed project will not consist of structures which would disrupt the natural silhouette
of ridgelines as viewed from established vantage points on the valley floor.
9. The proposed development consists of structures incorporating designs, colors,
materials, and outdoor lighting which blend with the natural hillside environment
and which are designed in such a manner as to reduce the effective visible mass,
including building height, as much as possible without creating other negative
environmental impacts (See General Plan Policies 2-46, 2-50, 2-51 and 2-52); including
The applicant is required to use natural earth tone and/or vegetation colors, which blend with
the natural hillside environment for all portions of development that occur along the steeply
34
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 5
sloping portion of the lot (as a condition of approval) and has designed the project in such a
manner as to reduce the effective visible mass to surrounding neighbors as much as possible.
In addition, the project is conditioned to plant additional trees within the area of disturbance
and retain the existing trees in order to further reduce the effective visible mass of the proposed
retaining walls and flat yard areas.
10. The proposed development is located on the parcel as far as possible from public open
space preserves or parks (if visible there from), riparian corridors, and wildlife
habitats unless such location will create other, more negative environmental impacts
(See General Plan Policies 2-55, 5-14 and 5-28);
The project is within the vicinity of the Stevens Creek Trail and may be visible from certain
vantage points along a nearby portion of the trail. However, the residence has been proposed
along the furthest property line from the trail and the existing trees and vegetation are expected
to lessen the potential visual impacts from the residence. The project has also been conditioned
to increase the setback from the rear property line adjacent to the trail which will result in
added visual buffers between the rear yard development and the trail. Additionally, the
property is adjacent to Blackberry Farm Park, a riparian corridor. However, the project, as
conditioned, would be located as far as possible from the corridor while still providing flat yard
area on the slopes. As conditioned, vegetation planted on the sloped portion of the site closest
to the riparian corridor shall be local native riparian plants. The parcel is not located adjacent
to wildlife habitat and is adjacent to other developed properties with a similar zoning. Since
wildlife are expected to traverse the property, the development has been required as a condition
of approval to limit the fencing allowed on site in order to allow the migration of wildlife
habitats.
11. The proposed development includes a landscape plan, which retains as many
specimen trees as possible, which utilizes drought-tolerant native plants and ground
covers consistent with nearby vegetation, and which minimizes lawn areas (See
General Plan Policies 2-54, 5-15 and 5-16);
A preliminary landscape plan has been provided and evaluated, and the project is conditioned
to provide a landscape plan to be reviewed and approved prior to Building Permit issuance.
The project, as conditioned, would preserve portions of the existing natural landscape on the
site in order to protect in place existing specimen trees. The project is required to comply with
Chapter 14.15: Landscape Ordinance of the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code (CMC) and
additionally required to minimize turf areas on hillsides, with turf being completely disallowed
on slopes greater than 25%. The installation of invasive plant species and noxious weeds is
prohibited.
35
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 6
Through the proposed site design and conditions of approval, which limit invasive species of
plants and turf areas, a balance between the residential development and preservation of the
natural hillside setting will be maintained.
12. The proposed development confines solid fencing to the areas near a structure rather
than around the entire site (See General Plan Policy 5-17); and
Consistent with the City’s fence requirements for Hillside properties, no limit has been placed
on solid fencing on the property as the property is less than 10,000 square feet in size. However,
as conditioned, solid fencing shall not be allowed along or facing the rear property line to avoid
additional visual impacts from Stevens Creek Trail.
13. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and
with the purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010.
The development meets the development standards for RHS and R1 zoned properties, as
applicable, and is consistent with the City's General Plan and with the purposes of Chapter
19.40 as described in Section 19.40.010. These have been described in detail in each of the
findings above.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the
Project and the basis for the exemption prior to taking any approval actions on the Project,
and exercising its independent judgment, based upon the entire record before it, has
determined that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15303, which applies to new construction or conversion of single-family residences and
accessory structures; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission takes the
following actions:
1. Exercises its independent judgment and determines that the Project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303. The exemption in CEQA
Guidelines section 15303 applies to new construction or conversion of single-family
residences and accessory structures. The proposed project is a new single-family
residence.
2. Approves the application for a Hillside Exception, Application no. EXC-2025-007
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE
6 thereof. The conclusions and sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions
specified in this resolution are based, including those contained in the Public Hearing
record concerning Application no. EXC-2025-007 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of February 10, 2026, are hereby incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
36
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
General Conditions of Approval
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set consisting of twenty one (21) sheets, labeled Sheets
CRV1, C-0, C-2, PLN1 through PLN4, A0.1 through A0.3, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1,
A5.1 through A5.3, L-1 through L-3, and TOPO, submitted by the Applicants.
Plans shall be revised to ensure that the usable flat yard areas are limited to the area
bounded by a 10-foot setback from the rear property line, a five-foot setback from the
36-inch oak tree dripline, and that the visible height of the retaining walls does not
exceed five feet.
These plans are approved, with the modifications outlined above, and as may be
amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. EXC-2025-008, R-2024-029, RM-2024-
028, and TR-2024-043 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the
first page of the building plans.
4. BUILDING PERMITS
The applicant shall consult with the City Building Division to obtain the necessary
building permits prior to commencement of work.
5. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible for verifying 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.
37
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 8
6. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior
color, material, architectural treatments and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of
building permits. The exterior colors and materials used for retaining walls shall be
natural earth tones and have low light reflectivity values of 60 or less. The final
building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original
approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of
Community Development shall require a minor modification approval with
neighborhood input.
7. FENCES
Fencing shall comply with the City’s Fence Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter
19.48) and be installed with appropriate design review and permit approvals.
Solid fencing shall not be allowed within the rear yard areas facing the rear property
line. Additionally, fence height for solid fencing shall be measured from the lowest
point of adjoining grade and shall include the height of any retaining wall.
8. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with
regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any
misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the
Community Development Department.
9. FUTURE SITE WORK
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property with the Santa Clara
County Recorder’s Office that requires future site work on slopes over 10 percent to
be limited to the area bounded by a 10-foot setback from the rear property line, a five-
foot setback from the 36-inch oak tree dripline. The precise language will be subject
to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must
be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy
of the residence.
10. LANDSCAPE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property with the Santa Clara
County Recorder’s Office that requires portions of the site with more than a 10 percent
slope to be planted with only local native riparian plant species. The precise language
will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of
38
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 9
recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to
final occupancy of the residence.
Conditions Prior to Building Permit Issuance
11. REVISIONS TO PLANS
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall revise plans in accordance with
the required revisions outlined in Condition #1 of this resolution. Revised plans shall
meet all other conditions of this resolution. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of Community Development or their designee prior to Building Permit
issuance.
12. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a
pre-construction meeting with the pertinent departments (including, but not limited
to, Building, Planning, Public Works, Santa Clara County Fire Department), prior to
issuance of grading and/or building permits, to review an applicant-prepared
construction management plan including, but not limited to:
a. Plan for compliance with conditions of approval
b. Plan for public access during work in the public right-of-way, if applicable
c. Construction staging area
d. Construction schedule and hours
e. Construction phasing plan, if any
f. Contractor parking area
g. Tree preservation/protection plan
h. Site dust, noise and storm run-off management plan
i. Emergency/complaint and construction site manager contacts
13. TREE PROTECTION
Per City Code Section 14.18.210, prior to issuance of any Building Permit, the
applicant must include the City’s standard tree protection measures, outlined in
Appendix A of City Code Chapter 14.18, on the plan. Please note that an ISA-certified
arborist will be required to verify the health of the tree and that the tree protection
measures are in place prior to construction. The arborist will also need to verify the
health of the tree following construction.
14. BIRD SAFE COMPLIANCE
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant/property owner shall submit final
plans in compliance with the approved plans to comply with development standards
of Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.102.030 Bird-Safe Development
39
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 10
Requirements. In the event changes are proposed from the approved plans, said
changes must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development
or their designee. The applicant shall provide all necessary documentation required
to determine compliance with the Municipal Code.
15. DARK SKY COMPLIANCE
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant/property owner shall submit final
plans in compliance with the approved lighting plans to comply with development
standards of Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.102.040 Outdoor Lighting
Requirements. In the event changes are proposed from the approved plans, said
changes must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development
or their designee. The applicant shall provide all documentation required to
determine compliance with the Municipal Code.
16. RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall ensure that plans are revised
to ensure that all retaining walls are designed in accordance with the requirements of
Municipal Code Section 16.08.200.
17. TREE PROTECTION BOND
Prior to grading permit issuance, a tree protection bond is required for all trees slated
for preservation. The bond shall be for an amount equivalent to their replacement.
18. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full landscape
project submittal per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-
Efficient Design Checklist (Appendix A of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation
Design Plans, and Water Budget Calculations shall be reviewed and approved to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building
permits.
A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and shall, in consultation
with the applicant and the City Engineer, submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to
screen cut and fill slopes. All cut and fill shall be rounded to contour with natural
contours and planted with landscaping which meets the requirements in Section
19.40.050G. Proposed landscaping shall not include the use of invasive species and
turf area shall be limited to slopes of less than 25%.
19. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
40
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 11
A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional
after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed and prior to final
occupancy. 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.”
20. GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
improvements and design parameters for building foundations and retaining walls)
to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The following
should be specifically addressed:
The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review the retaining wall profiles
provided by the Civil Engineer (or generate their own) to assure that their
geotechnical design criteria are appropriate for the tiered walls.
The Structural Plans/Calculations and Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted
to the City for review by the City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
21. 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.
22. COORDINATION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
41
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 12
The applicant shall communicate and coordinate all off-site road improvements and
utility extensions with affected adjacent property owners.
23. SCREENING OF RETAINING WALLS
As part of the building permit submittal the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan
that screens visible retaining walls and grading scars from public street views and
views from the adjoining Stevens Creek Tail. The screening shall be accomplished
through a combination of trees, shrubs and vines and pigmented concrete/rock wall
matched to the surrounding soils for the review and approval of the Director of
Community Development.
24. FIELD MOCK-UP OF EXTERIOR COLORS/TREATMENTS
Prior to issuance of the building permit, final colors and materials shall be assembled
and included with the construction plans. After the framing inspection and prior to
installation, the exterior colors and materials shall be mocked-up in the field for the
review and approval of the Director of Community Development.
25. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading, or building permit, include on all
permit plans, the full text of each of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
Basic Control Measures from 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.
26. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS FROM PAINT
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall include a note on all
plans where paint specifications or other design specifications are listed, that the
project design will incorporate only low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 grams per liter [g/L] or
less) for interior and exterior wall architectural coatings.
27. NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, include on plans a
note that, during project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the
following measures to reduce noise during construction and demolition activity:
a. The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and 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 Plan shall
demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits pursuant to
Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of Cupertino Municipal Code. The
42
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 13
details of the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included in the applicable
construction documents and implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
Noise reduction measures selected and implemented shall be based on the type
of construction equipment used on the site, distance of construction activities
from sensitive receptor(s), site terrain, and other features on and surrounding
the site (e.g., trees, built environment) and may include, but not be limited to,
temporary construction noise attenuation walls, high quality mufflers. During
the entire active construction period, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall
demonstrate that compliance with the specified noise control requirements for
construction equipment and tools will reduce construction noise in compliance
with the City’s daytime and nighttime decibel limits.
b. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and
submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to
the start of the construction phase.
c. Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction
zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of
unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use
for more than 5 minutes.
d. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of
noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for
safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up
alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background
noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in
compliance with all safety requirements and law.
28. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading or building permit, include on plans
a note that, during project construction, the project applicant shall implement the
following measures:
a. If paleontological resources are encountered during ground disturbing and/or
other construction activities, all construction shall be temporarily halted or
redirected to allow a qualified paleontologist, which shall be retained by the
project applicant, to assess the find for significance and the Applicant shall notify
the City.
b. If paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological
monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in coordination with a qualified
paleontologist, City staff, and property owner. Appropriate actions may include,
43
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 14
but are not limited to, a mitigation plan formulated pursuant to guidelines
developed by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and implemented to
appropriately protect the significance of the resource by preservation,
documentation, and/or removal, prior to recommencing activities. Measures
may include, but are not limited to, salvage of unearthed fossil remains and/or
traces (e.g., tracks, trails, burrows); screen washing to recover small specimens;
preparation of salvaged fossils to a point of being ready for curation (e.g.,
removal of enclosing matrix, stabilization and repair of specimens, and
construction of reinforced support cradles); and identification, cataloging,
curation, and provision for repository storage of prepared fossil specimens.
29. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit involving soil
disturbance, the project applicant shall provide written verification, including the
materials provided to contractors and construction crews, to the City confirming 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 these resources as follows:
a. Basic archaeological site indicators that may include, but are not limited to, darker
than surrounding soils of a friable nature; evidence of fires (ash, charcoal, fire
affected rock or earth); concentrations of stone, bone, or shellfish; artifacts of stone,
bone, or shellfish; evidence of living surfaces (e.g., floors); and burials, either
human or animal.
b. The potential for undiscovered archaeological resources or tribal cultural
resources on site.
c. The laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, including, but not
limited to, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990,
Public Resources Code Section 5097, and California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050 and Section 7052.
d. The protection procedures to follow should construction crews discover cultural
resources during project-related earthwork, include the following:
1. All soil disturbing work within 25 feet of the find shall cease.
2. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide and
implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation, as needed, to define
the deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project
area to determine whether the resource is significant and would be affected
by the project.
44
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 15
3. Any potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources found during
construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California
Department of Parks and Recreation forms by a qualified archaeologist. If the
resource is a tribal cultural resource, the consulting archaeologist shall
consult with the appropriate tribe, as determined by the Native American
Heritage Commission, to evaluate the significance of the resource and to
recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or
mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find,
proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. The archeologist
shall perform this evaluation in consultation with the tribe.
30. HUMAN REMAINS AND NATIVE AMERICAN BURIALS
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading and building permits that involve soil
disturbance, include on plans a note that, during project construction, the project
applicant shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
a. In the event of discovering human remains during construction activities, there
shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 100-foot radius of
the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains.
b. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall make a
determination as to whether the remains are Native American.
c. If the Santa Clara County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to
his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
within 24 hours.
d. The NAHC shall attempt to identify descendants (Most Likely Descendant) of the
deceased Native American.
e. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours following access to the project site to
make recommendations or preferences regarding the disposition of the remains.
If the Most Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours
after being allowed access to the project site, the owner shall, with appropriate
dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further
disturbance and provide documentation about this determination and the location
of the remains to the NAHC and the City of Cupertino. Alternatively, if the owner
does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the
descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Construction shall halt until the
mediation has concluded.
31. TREE PROTECTION
45
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 16
As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be
prepared by a certified arborist for protected trees as applicable. 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.
Conditions During Construction
32. CONSTRUCTION HOURS
The applicant shall comply with any applicable standards in Chapter 10.48,
Community Noise Control, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The developer shall be
responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction
restrictions. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and
limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a
developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location
at the entrance to the job site and along Regnart Road, prior to commencement of
demolition and/or grading activities.
33. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent
feasible to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The applicant shall provide
evidence that materials were recycled prior to final sign off of demolition/grading
permits.
46
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 17
34. GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND NOISE LIMITS
a. All grading activities shall be limited to the dry season (April 15 to October 1),
unless permitted otherwise by the Director of Public works.
b. Construction hours and noise limits shall be compliant with all requirements of
Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
c. Grading, street construction, underground utility and demolition hours for work
done more than 750 feet away from residential areas shall be limited to Monday
through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within 750
feet of residential areas shall not occur on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and
during the nighttime period as defined in the Municipal Code.
d. Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8
p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not
allowed on holidays as defined in Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code. Night
time construction is allowed if compliant with nighttime standards of Section
10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
e. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations
identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of an
applicant appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent
location at the entrance to the job site.
f. The applicant shall be responsible for educating all contractors and
subcontractors of said construction restrictions.
The applicant shall annotate all permit plans with the above requirements and shall
comply with the above grading and construction hours and noise limit requirements
unless otherwise indicated.
35. DUST CONTROL
The following construction practices shall be implemented during all phases of
construction for the proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving
the site:
a. Water all exposed surfaces areas (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily and more often
during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas
adjacent to windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept
damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
47
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 18
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
The applicant shall incorporate the City’s construction best management practices
into the building permit plan set prior to any grading, excavation, foundation or
building permit issuance.
36. NESTING BIRDS
Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by
the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and
Game Code.
a. Construction and tree removal/pruning activities shall be scheduled to avoid the
nesting season to the extent feasible. If feasible, tree removal and/or pruning shall
be completed before the start of the nesting season to help preclude nesting. The
nesting season for most birds and raptors in the San Francisco Bay area extends
from February 1 through August 31. Preconstruction surveys (described below)
are not required for tree removal or construction activities outside the nesting
period.
b. If construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the nesting
season (February 1 and August 31), a qualified ornithologist shall be required to
conduct surveys prior to tree removal or construction activities. Preconstruction
surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal,
48
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 19
pruning or construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day
intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can
be stopped. During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other
possible nesting habitats in and immediately adjacent to the construction areas for
nests.
c. If the survey does not identify any nesting birds that would be affected by
construction activities, no further mitigation is required. If an active nest
containing viable eggs or young birds is found sufficiently close to work areas to
be disturbed by these activities, their locations shall be documented and protective
measures implemented under the direction of the qualified ornithologist until the
nests no longer contain eggs or young birds.
d. Protective measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion
zones (i.e. demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing
or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified
ornithologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for
disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones
shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other
birds. The active nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly
basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm
nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
biologist, if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting
birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in
consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection
measures and buffers shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and
are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology, survey
date(s), map of identified active nests (if any), and protection measures (if required),
shall be submitted to the Planning Manager, through the building permit review
process, and be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director prior to the start of grading.
37. NOISE AND VIBRATION NOTICE
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or
construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall send notices of the
planned activity by first class mail as follows:
a. For projects on sites that are more than 0.5 acres or four or more residential units
the notices shall be sent to off-site businesses and residents within 500 feet of the
project site;
49
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 20
b. For projects on sites between 0.25 to 0.5 acres, or two or three residential units
(not including Accessory Dwelling Units) notices shall be sent to off-site
businesses and residents within 250 feet of the project site; or
c. For projects on sites less than 0.25 acres or one residential unit, the notices shall
be sent to off-site businesses and residents within 100 feet of the project site.
The notification shall include a brief description of the project, the activities that
would occur, the hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s
overall duration. The notification should include the telephone numbers of the
contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a
noise or vibration complaint. The City will provide mailing addresses for the
Applicant’s use. The project applicant shall provide the City with evidence of mailing
of the notice, upon request. If pile driving, see additional noticing requirements below.
38. NOISE AND VIBRATION SIGNAGE
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or
construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall ensure that a sign
measuring at least two feet by three feet shall be posted on construction fencing at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, and include the following:
a. Permitted construction days and hours;
b. A description of proposed construction activities;
c. Telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint; and
d. Contact information for City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a complaint related to fugitive dust,
pursuant to the requirements for compliance with BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the complaint and the
action taken to the City within three business days of receiving the complaint.
39. GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS
Prior to final inspections, the City Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as
needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The
inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and
grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for
foundations prior to placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections
50
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 21
and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the City Geotechnical
Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval
prior to final inspections.
40. TREE PROTECTION
The existing trees to remain shall be protected during construction per the City’s
Protected Tree Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the municipal code). A report ascertaining
the good health of these trees shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy.
41. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
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 prior to issuance of final occupancy,
or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted prior to issuance of
building permits.
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.
42. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
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
51
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 22
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.
43. 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
44. THIRD-PARTY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
52
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 23
Developer shall address the remaining comments in the Supplemental Geotechnical
Peer Review letter issued by Cotton, Shires and Associates dated January 19, 2026,
prior to issuance of the Building Permit. Additional comments from Cotton, Shires
and Associates may be provided during the Building Permit stage and shall be
incorporated prior to Building Permit approval.
45. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Street improvements, grading and drainage plans must be completed and approved
prior to issuance of Building Permit.
Street improvements may include, but not be limited to, new detached sidewalk, new
ADA ramp, driveways, storm drain lateral, street tree installations, and street light
and/or pedestrian push button relocation. All improvements must be completed and
accepted by the City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street Improvement
Encroachment Permit acceptance whichever comes first.
Additional comments will be provided and shall be incorporated prior to Building
Permit approval.
46. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades
and standards as specified by the Director of Public Works. All improvements must
be completed and accepted by the City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street
Improvement Encroachment Permit acceptance whichever comes first.
47. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the Director of Public Works in
accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications
and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or
Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
48. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Hydrology and pre- and post-development hydraulic calculations must be provided
to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or
renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface
storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales,
and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and
improve water quality. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be
53
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 24
directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as
much as reasonably possible.
Additional comments will be provided and shall be incorporated prior to Building
Permit approval.
49. INSTALLATION AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into an Installation agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, transportation impact fees, park dedication fees and
fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement and fees shall be executed and
paid prior to issuance of Building permit approval.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: Per current fee schedule ($6,203 or 5% of
improvement costs)
b. Grading Permit: Per current fee schedule ($5,365 or 6% of
improvement costs)
c. Storm Drainage Fee: Per current fee schedule ($4,669 per unit)
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time
of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said
change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee
schedule.
50. SURVEYS
A Boundary Survey and a horizontal control plan will be required for all new
construction to ensure the proposed building will be set based on the boundary
survey and setback requirements.
51. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City
before issuance of a building permit approval. The Agreement shall include the
54
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 25
operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-
of-way that may include, but is not limited to, landscaping, and curb & gutter.
52. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility
underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected
Utility provider and the Director of Public Works.
53. TRANSFORMERS & CABINETS
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.
54. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment
shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location
approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire
Department and the water company.
55. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in grading and street improvement plans.
56. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil
Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain
materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans.
57. WORK SCHEDULE
55
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 26
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the
timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project.
58. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to
be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for
work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during
construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout
the City.
59. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
60. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire
Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written
approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department
Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on
private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections
must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant).
61. SAN JOSE WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide San Jose Water Service Company approval for water connection, service
capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before
issuance of a building permit approval.
62. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract
water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara
Valley.
63. SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance or sign off of street improvement plans for the project shall be
obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permit.
64. UTILITY EASEMENTS
56
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-007 February 10, 2026
Page 27
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including
PG&E, AT&T, and San Jose Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be
required prior to issuance of building permits.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February, 2026, Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
57
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING AN R1 EXCEPTION TO ALLOW FOR A GARAGE TO BE
LOCATED CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE USABLE LIVING
AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 22068
SAN FERNANDO COURT(A.P.N. 357 12 012)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2025-008
Applicants: David Kuoppamaki
Location: 22068 San Fernando Court; APN: 357 12 012
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN R1 EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for an R1 Exception as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for an R1 Exception to allow a
garage to be located closer to the street than the proposed usable living area on a new
single-family residence; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), together with the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.)
(hereinafter, "CEQA Guidelines"), the City staff has independently studied the proposed
Project and has determined that the Project is exempt from environmental review
pursuant to the categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303 for the reasons
set forth in the staff report dated February 10, 2026 and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
public meeting in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive public testimony on the Project, including the categorical CEQA
exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303, and reviewed and considered the
58
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-008 February 10, 2026
Page 2
information contained in the staff report pertaining to the Project, all other pertinent
documents, and all written and oral statements received by the Planning Commission at
or prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows, with regard to this application,
that:
1. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the
spirit and intent of this chapter.
The R-1 Chapter is intended to: enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; ensure
provision of light, air and a reasonable level of privacy to individual residential parcels; ensure
a reasonable level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; and
reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community. The proposed garage is
sited to maintain the existing driveway curb cute and to avoid an additional front yard setback
which would result in the residence being developed on the steeply sloping portion of the
property. The living area being more setback than the garage is not inconsistent with the pattern
of the existing neighborhood development.
However, if the requirement for the garage to be more setback was enforced, the design of the
residence could be altered resulting in either additional grading of steep slopes of additional
massing of the second story which would be incompatible with the existing development in the
neighborhood. Therefore, the literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions
inconsistent with the spirit of this chapter.
2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare.
All other portions of the proposed residence, as conditioned, are compliant with the development
and design standards required by the R1 Ordinance. Therefore, the development will not be
injurious to property or improvements in the area, nor be detrimental to the public safety, health
and welfare.
3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the
prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the
purpose;
The proposed development reduces the degree of nonconformity by implementing a stepped
design of the living area and entry area. These standards will be maintained through conditions
59
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-008 February 10, 2026
Page 3
of approval of this permit. Therefore, the development is the least impactful option that will
accomplish the purpose of the new residence.
4. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from
abutting properties;
The location of the garage in front of the living area will result in visual impacts from the right
of way and would not otherwise affect the height or setbacks of structures that may be developed
on the property. Therefore, the proposed exception will not result in a significant visual impact
as viewed from abutting properties.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the
Project and the basis for the exemption prior to taking any approval actions on the Project,
and exercising its independent judgment, based upon the entire record before it, has
determined that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15303, which applies to new construction or conversion of single-family residences and
accessory structures; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission takes the
following actions:
1. Exercises its independent judgment and determines that the Project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303. The exemption in CEQA
Guidelines section 15303 applies to new construction or conversion of single-family
residences and accessory structures. The proposed project is a new single-family
residence.
2. Approves the application for an R1 Exception, Application no. EXC-2025-008 subject to
the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 3 thereof.
The conclusions and sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified
in this resolution are based, including those contained in the Public Hearing record
concerning Application no. EXC-2025-008 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of February 10, 2026, are hereby incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
60
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-008 February 10, 2026
Page 4
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set consisting of twenty one (21) sheets, labeled Sheets
CRV1, C-0, C-2, PLN1 through PLN4, A0.1 through A0.3, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1,
A5.1 through A5.3, L-1 through L-3, and TOPO, submitted by the Applicants, except
as may be amended by the conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. EXC-2025-007, R-2024-029, RM-2024-
028, and TR-2024-043 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the
building plans.
4. BUILDING PERMITS
The applicant shall consult with the City Building Division to obtain the necessary
building permits prior to commencement of work.
5. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible for verifying 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.
6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible for consulting 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 any approval by the
Community Development Department.
7. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall
agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless
the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the
“indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action,
suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as
“proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties
or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance,
Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental
61
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-008 February 10, 2026
Page 5
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.
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.
62
Resolution No. 2026-XX EXC-2025-008 February 10, 2026
Page 6
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February, 2026, Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
63
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,236-SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY,
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH SECOND STORY SIDE
SETBACKS OF LESS THAN 15 FEET AND A SECOND TO FIRST
FLOOR AREA RATIO OF MORE THAN 66 PERCENT LOCATED AT
22068 SAN FERNANDO COURT (A.P.N. 357 12 012)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: R-2024-029
Applicants: David Kuoppamaki
Location: 22068 San Fernando Court; APN: 357 12 012
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Design Review Permit as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), together with the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.)
(hereinafter, "CEQA Guidelines"), the City staff has independently studied the proposed
Project and has determined that the Project is exempt from environmental review
pursuant to the categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303 for the reasons
set forth in the staff report dated February 10, 2026 and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
public meeting in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive public testimony on the Project, including the categorical CEQA
exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303, and reviewed and considered the
information contained in the staff report pertaining to the Project, all other pertinent
64
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 2
documents, and all written and oral statements received by the Planning Commission at
or prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows, with regard to this application,
that:
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific
plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as the project is within the Low-
Density land use area. There are no applicable specific plans that affect the project. The project
has been found to be consistent with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter
19.28 Single Family (R-1) Residential.
2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious
to property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to
property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare as the projects is located within the R1-7.5 (Single Family Residential) zoning
district and will be compatible with the surrounding uses of the neighborhood.
3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood.
The proposed project is located in a residential area consisting of single-family homes. The
proposed project, as conditioned, maintains the single-family home scale found compatible with
the general neighborhood.
4. The project is consistent with the two-story design principles and generally consistent
with the single-family residential design guidelines.
The proposed project has been conditioned to revise the residence’s design to reduce building
mass by 1) reducing building height to ensure that all portions of the first story fit within the
required first story building envelope and 2) adding sloped roof elements to a minimum of 25%
of the first story and 50% of the second story. These revisions will ensure that the project is
consistent with the two-story design principles and generally consistent with the single-family
residential design guidelines.
5. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
65
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 3
Any potential adverse impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated through
installation of a front-yard tree as required by the R-1 Ordinance and additional privacy
plantings to screen the windows that have sill heights of 5 feet or less.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the
Project and the basis for the exemption prior to taking any approval actions on the Project,
and exercising its independent judgment, based upon the entire record before it, has
determined that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15303, which applies to new construction or conversion of single-family residences and
accessory structures; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission takes the
following actions:
1. Exercises its independent judgment and determines that the Project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303. The exemption in CEQA
Guidelines section 15303 applies to new construction or conversion of single-family
residences and accessory structures. The proposed project is a new single-family
residence.
2. Approves the application for a Design Review Permit, Application no. R-2024-029
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE
3 thereof. The conclusions and sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions
specified in this resolution are based, including those contained in the Public Hearing
record concerning Application no. R-2024-029 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of February 10, 2026, are hereby incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set consisting of twenty one (21) sheets, labeled Sheets
CRV1, C-0, C-2, PLN1 through PLN4, A0.1 through A0.3, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1,
A5.1 through A5.3, L-1 through L-3, and TOPO, submitted by the Applicants.
Plans shall be revised to ensure that building mass is reduced by:
a) reducing building height to ensure that all portions of the first story fit within
the required first story building envelope; and
66
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 4
b) adding sloped roof elements to a minimum of 25% of the first story and 50% of
the second story.
Plans shall also be revised to remove the second story door shown on the left
(southeast) elevation drawing which leads to the non-balcony rooftop and to ensure
compliance with the City’s privacy screening requirements (see Condition 13).
These plans are approved, with the modifications outlined above, and as may be
amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. EXC-2025-007, EXC-2025-008, RM-
2024-028, and TR-2024-043 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the
building plans.
4. BUILDING PERMITS
The applicant shall consult with the City Building Division to obtain the necessary
building permits prior to commencement of work.
5. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible for verifying 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.
6. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC WORKS CONFIRMATION FORM
The project shall comply with the requirements indicated on the Public Works
Confirmation form, including, but not limited to, dedications, easements, off-site
improvements, undergrounding of utilities, all necessary agreements, and utility
installations/relocations as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works and
required for public health and safety. The Public Works Confirmation is a preliminary
review and is not an exhaustive review of the subject development. Additional
requirements may be established and implemented during the construction
permitting process. The project construction plans shall address these requirements
with the construction permit submittal, and all required improvements shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy.
67
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 5
7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible for consulting 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 any approval by the
Community Development Department.
8. REVISIONS TO PLANS
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall revise plans in accordance with
the required revisions outlined in Condition #1 of this resolution. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or their
designee prior to Building Permit issuance.
9. TREE PROTECTION
Per City Code Section 14.18.210, prior to issuance of any Building Permit, the
applicant must include the City’s standard tree protection measures, outlined in
Appendix A of City Code Chapter 14.18, on the plan. Please note that an ISA-certified
arborist will be required to verify the health of the tree and that the tree protection
measures are in place prior to construction. The arborist will also need to verify the
health of the tree following construction.
Additionally, no new grading that changes existing grades underneath the dripline of
the 36” oak tree, that is not already indicated, shall be allowed without appropriate
review and approval by the City and the City’s third party arborist at the expense of
the applicant.
10. DARK SKY COMPLIANCE
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant/property owner shall submit final
plans in compliance with the approved lighting plans to comply with development
standards of Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.102.040 Outdoor Lighting
Requirements. In the event changes are proposed from the approved plans, said
changes must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development
or their designee. The applicant shall provide all documentation required to
determine compliance with the Municipal Code.
11. FRONT YARD TREE
The applicant shall indicate on site and landscape plans the location of a front yard
tree to be located within the front yard setback area in order to screen the massing of
the second story. The front yard tree shall be a minimum 24-inch box and 6 feet
planted height and otherwise be consistent with the City’s requirements.
68
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 6
12. FRONT YARD TREE COVENANT
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property with the Santa Clara
County Recorder’s Office that requires the retention and maintenance of the required
front yard tree. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of
Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence.
13. PRIVACY PLANTING
The provided draft privacy plan is not approved as part of this permit and a final
privacy planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior
to issuance of building permits. The variety, size, and planting distance shall be
consistent with the City’s requirements, however trees located within the rear yard
area shall be native oak tree varieties.
14. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future
property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements
consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with views into neighboring yards
and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise
language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.
Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to final occupancy of the residence.
15. 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.
16. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the
original approved plans. Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not
limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors,
windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved
69
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 7
by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits 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.
17. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent
feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that
materials were recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits.
18. DUST CONTROL
The following construction practices shall be implemented during all phases of
construction for the proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving
the site:
a. Water all exposed surfaces areas (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) at least twice daily and more often
during windy periods to prevent visible dust from leaving the site; active areas
adjacent to windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be
kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust
palliatives.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior
to operation.
70
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 8
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
i. The applicant shall incorporate the City’s construction best management
practices into the building permit plan set.
19. GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND NOISE LIMITS
a. All grading activities shall be limited to the dry season (April 15 to October 1),
unless permitted otherwise by the Director of Public works.
b. Construction hours and noise limits shall be compliant with all requirements of
Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
c. Grading, street construction, underground utility and demolition hours for work
done more than 750 feet away from residential areas shall be limited to Monday
through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within 750
feet of residential areas shall not occur on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and
during the nighttime period as defined in Section 10.48.053(b) of the Municipal
Code.
d. Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not allowed
on holidays as defined in Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code. Night time
construction is allowed if compliant with nighttime standards of Section 10.48 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code.
e. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations
identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of an
applicant appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent
location at the entrance to the job site.
f. The applicant shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors
of said construction restrictions.
The applicant shall comply with the above grading and construction hours and noise
limit requirements unless otherwise indicated
20. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading, or building permit, include on all
permit plans, the full text of each of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
Basic Control Measures from the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive
71
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 9
dust (i.e., particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10) during demolition, ground disturbing
activities and/or construction.
21. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS FROM PAINT
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall include a note on all
plans where paint specifications or other design specifications are listed, that the
project design will incorporate only low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 grams per liter [g/L] or
less) for interior and exterior wall architectural coatings.
22. AVOID NESTING BIRDS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading and building permit, indicate the
following on all construction plans:
b. Demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, and tree removal/pruning activities
shall be scheduled to be completed prior to nesting season (February 1 through
August 31), if feasible.
c. If demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities
occur during the nesting season (February 1 and August 31), preconstruction
surveys shall be conducted as follows:
i. No more than 7 days prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-
disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities, in order to identify any active
nests with eggs or young birds on the site and surrounding area within 100
feet of construction or tree removal activities.
ii. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until
demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning
activities have been initiated in the area, after which surveys can be stopped.
As part of the preconstruction survey(s), the surveyor shall inspect all trees
and other possible nesting habitats in, and immediately adjacent to, the
construction areas for active nests, while ensuring that they do not disturb the
nests as follows:
1) For projects that require the demolition or construction one single-
family residence, ground disturbing activities affecting areas of up to
500 square feet, or the removal of up to three trees, the property owner
or a tree removal contractor, if necessary, is permitted to conduct the
preconstruction surveys to identify if there are any active nests. If any
active nests with eggs or young birds are identified, the project applicant
shall retain a qualified ornithologist or biologist to identify protective
measures.
72
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 10
2) For any other demolition, construction and ground disturbing activity
or the removal of four or more trees, a qualified ornithologist or biologist
shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct the preconstruction
surveys.
iii. If the preconstruction survey does not identify any active nests with eggs or
young birds that would be affected by demolition, construction, ground-
disturbing or tree removal/pruning activities, no further mitigating action is
required. If an active nest containing eggs or young birds is found sufficiently
close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, their locations shall be
documented, and the qualified ornithologist or biologist shall identify
protective measures to be implemented under their direction until the nests
no longer contain eggs or young birds.
iv. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, establishment of
clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing,
such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location
as determined by the qualified ornithologist or biologist, taking into account
the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to
existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300
feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest
within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout
the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
ornithologist or biologist, if project activities are determined to be adversely
affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified
ornithologist or biologist only in consultation with California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures and buffers shall remain in effect
until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest
is no longer active.
v. A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology,
survey date(s), map of identified active nests (if any), and protection
measures (if required), shall be prepared by the qualified ornithologist or
biologist and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his or
her designee, through the appropriate permit review process (e.g.,
demolition, construction, tree removal, etc.), and be completed to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the start of
demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning
activities.
73
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 11
23. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit involving soil
disturbance, the project applicant shall provide written verification, including the
materials provided to contractors and construction crews, to the City confirming 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 these resources as follows:
a. Basic archaeological site indicators that may include, but are not limited to, darker
than surrounding soils of a friable nature; evidence of fires (ash, charcoal, fire
affected rock or earth); concentrations of stone, bone, or shellfish; artifacts of
stone, bone, or shellfish; evidence of living surfaces (e.g., floors); and burials,
either human or animal.
b. The potential for undiscovered archaeological resources or tribal cultural
resources on site.
c. The laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, including, but not
limited to, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990,
Public Resources Code Section 5097, and California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050 and Section 7052.
d. The protection procedures to follow should construction crews discover cultural
resources during project-related earthwork, include the following:
i. All soil disturbing work within 25 feet of the find shall cease.
ii. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide and
implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation, as needed, to define
the deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project area
to determine whether the resource is significant and would be affected by the
project.
iii. Any potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources found during
construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California
Department of Parks and Recreation forms by a qualified archaeologist. If the
resource is a tribal cultural resource, the consulting archaeologist shall consult
with the appropriate tribe, as determined by the Native American Heritage
Commission, to evaluate the significance of the resource and to recommend
appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation
measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed
74
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 12
project design, costs, and other considerations. The archeologist shall perform
this evaluation in consultation with the tribe.
24. HUMAN REMAINS AND NATIVE AMERICAN BURIALS
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading and building permits that involve soil
disturbance, include on plans a note that, during project construction, the project
applicant shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
a. In the event of discovering human remains during construction activities, there
shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 100-foot radius
of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains.
b. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall make a
determination as to whether the remains are Native American.
c. If the Santa Clara County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to
his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) within 24 hours.
d. The NAHC shall attempt to identify descendants (Most Likely Descendant) of
the deceased Native American.
e. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours following access to the project site to
make recommendations or preferences regarding the disposition of the remains.
If the Most Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours
after being allowed access to the project site, the owner shall, with appropriate
dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further
disturbance and provide documentation about this determination and the
location of the remains to the NAHC and the City of Cupertino. Alternatively, if
the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the
owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Construction
shall halt until the mediation has concluded.
25. STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTAMINATION
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the project applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and
Watershed Protection) of the Cupertino Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer or his or her designee. All identified stormwater runoff control measures
shall be included in the applicable construction documents.
26. NOISE AND VIBRATION NOTICE
75
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 13
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or
construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall ensure that a sign
measuring at least two feet by three feet shall be posted on construction fencing at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, and include the following:
a. Permitted construction days and hours;
b. A description of proposed construction activities;
c. Telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint; and
d. Contact information for City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a complaint related to fugitive dust,
pursuant to the requirements for compliance with BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the complaint and the
action taken to the City within three business days of receiving the complaint.
27. NOISE AND VIBRATION SIGNAGE
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or
construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall ensure that a sign
measuring at least two feet by three feet shall be posted on construction fencing at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, and include the following:
a. Permitted construction days and hours;
b. A description of proposed construction activities;
c. Telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint; and
d. Contact information for City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a complaint related to fugitive dust,
pursuant to the requirements for compliance with BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the complaint and the
action taken to the City within three business days of receiving the complaint.
28. NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, include on plans a
note that, during project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the
following measures to reduce noise during construction and demolition activity:
76
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 14
a. The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and 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 Plan shall
demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits pursuant to
Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of Cupertino Municipal Code. The
details of the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included in the applicable
construction documents and implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
Noise reduction measures selected and implemented shall be based on the type
of construction equipment used on the site, distance of construction activities
from sensitive receptor(s), site terrain, and other features on and surrounding
the site (e.g., trees, built environment) and may include, but not be limited to,
temporary construction noise attenuation walls, high quality mufflers. During
the entire active construction period, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall
demonstrate that compliance with the specified noise control requirements for
construction equipment and tools will reduce construction noise in compliance
with the City’s daytime and nighttime decibel limits.
b. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and
submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to
the start of the construction phase.
c. Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction
zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of
unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use
for more than 5 minutes.
d. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of
noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for
safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up
alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background
noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in
compliance with all safety requirements and law.
29. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading or building permit, include on plans
a note that, during project construction, the project applicant shall implement the
following measures:
a. If paleontological resources are encountered during ground disturbing and/or
other construction activities, all construction shall be temporarily halted or
redirected to allow a qualified paleontologist, which shall be retained by the
77
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 15
project applicant, to assess the find for significance and the Applicant shall notify
the City.
b. If paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological
monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in coordination with a qualified
paleontologist, City staff, and property owner. Appropriate actions may include,
but are not limited to, a mitigation plan formulated pursuant to guidelines
developed by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and implemented to
appropriately protect the significance of the resource by preservation,
documentation, and/or removal, prior to recommencing activities. Measures
may include, but are not limited to, salvage of unearthed fossil remains and/or
traces (e.g., tracks, trails, burrows); screen washing to recover small specimens;
preparation of salvaged fossils to a point of being ready for curation (e.g.,
removal of enclosing matrix, stabilization and repair of specimens, and
construction of reinforced support cradles); and identification, cataloging,
curation, and provision for repository storage of prepared fossil specimens.
30. 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
78
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 16
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.
31. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail
to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February, 2026, Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
79
Resolution No. 2026-XX R-2024-029 February 10, 2026
Page 17
80
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW REAR FACING BALCONY ON A
PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 22068 SAN
FERNANDO COURT (A.P.N. 357 12 012)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: RM-2024-028
Applicants: David Kuoppamaki
Location: 22068 San Fernando Court; APN: 357 12 012
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Minor Residential Permit as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), together with the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.)
(hereinafter, "CEQA Guidelines"), the City staff has independently studied the proposed
Project and has determined that the Project is exempt from environmental review
pursuant to the categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303 for the reasons
set forth in the staff report dated February 10, 2026 and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
public meeting in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive public testimony on the Project, including the categorical CEQA
exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303, and reviewed and considered the
information contained in the staff report pertaining to the Project, all other pertinent
documents, and all written and oral statements received by the Planning Commission at
or prior to the public hearing; and
81
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 2
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows, with regard to this application,
that:
1. The project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan, any applicable specific
plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as the project is within the Low-
Density land use area. There are no applicable specific plans that affect the project. The project
has been found to be consistent with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter
19.28 Single Family (R-1) Residential.
2. The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious
to property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to
property improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare as the projects is located within the R1-7.5 (Single Family Residential) zoning
district and will be compatible with the surrounding uses of the neighborhood.
3. The proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general
neighborhood.
The proposed project is located in a residential area consisting of single-family homes. The
proposed project, as conditioned, maintains the single-family home scale found compatible with
the general neighborhood.
4. Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated.
Any potential adverse impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated, as
conditioned, through the requirement for the installation of a privacy screening as required by
the R-1 Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the
Project and the basis for the exemption prior to taking any approval actions on the Project,
and exercising its independent judgment, based upon the entire record before it, has
determined that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15303, which applies to new construction or conversion of single-family residences and
accessory structures; and
82
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission takes the
following actions:
1. Exercises its independent judgment and determines that the Project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303. The exemption in CEQA
Guidelines section 15303 applies to new construction or conversion of single-family
residences and accessory structures. The proposed project is a new single-family
residence.
2. Approves the application for a Minor Residential Permit, Application no. RM-2024-028
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE
3 thereof. The conclusions and sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions
specified in this resolution are based, including those contained in the Public Hearing
record concerning Application no. RM-2024-028 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of February 10, 2026, are hereby incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set consisting of twenty one (21) sheets, labeled Sheets
CRV1, C-0, C-2, PLN1 through PLN4, A0.1 through A0.3, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1,
A5.1 through A5.3, L-1 through L-3, and TOPO, submitted by the Applicants, except
as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. EXC-2025-007, EXC-2025-008, R-
2024-029, and TR-2024-043 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the
building plans.
4. BUILDING PERMITS
The applicant shall consult with the City Building Division to obtain the necessary
building permits prior to commencement of work.
83
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 4
5. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible for verifying 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.
6. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC WORKS CONFIRMATION FORM
The project shall comply with the requirements indicated on the Public Works
Confirmation form, including, but not limited to, dedications, easements, off-site
improvements, undergrounding of utilities, all necessary agreements, and utility
installations/relocations as deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works and
required for public health and safety. The Public Works Confirmation is a preliminary
review and is not an exhaustive review of the subject development. Additional
requirements may be established and implemented during the construction
permitting process. The project construction plans shall address these requirements
with the construction permit submittal, and all required improvements shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to final occupancy.
7. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible for consulting 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 any approval by the
Community Development Department.
8. PRIVACY PLANTING
The provided draft privacy plan is not approved as part of this permit and a final
privacy planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior
to issuance of building permits. The variety, size, and planting distance shall be
consistent with the City’s requirements, however trees located within the rear yard
area shall be native oak tree varieties.
9. PRIVACY PROTECTION COVENANT
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future
property owners of the privacy protection measures and tree protection requirements
consistent with the R-1 Ordinance, for all windows with views into neighboring yards
and a sill height that is 5 feet or less from the second story finished floor. The precise
language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.
Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to final occupancy of the residence.
84
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 5
10. 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.
11. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the
original approved plans. Final building exterior treatment plan (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 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.
12. GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND NOISE LIMITS
a. All grading activities shall be limited to the dry season (April 15 to October 1),
unless permitted otherwise by the Director of Public works.
b. Construction hours and noise limits shall be compliant with all requirements of
Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
c. Grading, street construction, underground utility and demolition hours for work
done more than 750 feet away from residential areas shall be limited to Monday
through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within 750
feet of residential areas shall not occur on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and
during the nighttime period as defined in Section 10.48.053(b) of the Municipal
Code.
d. Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not allowed
on holidays as defined in Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code. Night time
construction is allowed if compliant with nighttime standards of Section 10.48 of
the Cupertino Municipal Code.
85
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 6
e. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations
identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of an
applicant appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent
location at the entrance to the job site.
f. The applicant shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors
of said construction restrictions.
The applicant shall comply with the above grading and construction hours and noise
limit requirements unless otherwise indicated
13. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading, or building permit, include on all
permit plans, the full text of each of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
Basic Control Measures from 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.
14. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS FROM PAINT
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall include a note on all
plans where paint specifications or other design specifications are listed, that the
project design will incorporate only low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 grams per liter [g/L] or
less) for interior and exterior wall architectural coatings.
15. AVOID NESTING BIRDS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading and building permit, indicate the
following on all construction plans:
b. Demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, and tree removal/pruning activities
shall be scheduled to be completed prior to nesting season (February 1 through
August 31), if feasible.
c. If demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities
occur during the nesting season (February 1 and August 31), preconstruction
surveys shall be conducted as follows:
i. No more than 7 days prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-
disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities, in order to identify any active
nests with eggs or young birds on the site and surrounding area within 100
feet of construction or tree removal activities.
ii. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until
demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning
86
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 7
activities have been initiated in the area, after which surveys can be stopped.
As part of the preconstruction survey(s), the surveyor shall inspect all trees
and other possible nesting habitats in, and immediately adjacent to, the
construction areas for active nests, while ensuring that they do not disturb the
nests as follows:
1) For projects that require the demolition or construction one single-
family residence, ground disturbing activities affecting areas of up to
500 square feet, or the removal of up to three trees, the property owner
or a tree removal contractor, if necessary, is permitted to conduct the
preconstruction surveys to identify if there are any active nests. If any
active nests with eggs or young birds are identified, the project applicant
shall retain a qualified ornithologist or biologist to identify protective
measures.
2) For any other demolition, construction and ground disturbing activity
or the removal of four or more trees, a qualified ornithologist or biologist
shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct the preconstruction
surveys.
iii. If the preconstruction survey does not identify any active nests with eggs or
young birds that would be affected by demolition, construction, ground-
disturbing or tree removal/pruning activities, no further mitigating action is
required. If an active nest containing eggs or young birds is found sufficiently
close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, their locations shall be
documented, and the qualified ornithologist or biologist shall identify
protective measures to be implemented under their direction until the nests
no longer contain eggs or young birds.
iv. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, establishment of
clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing,
such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location
as determined by the qualified ornithologist or biologist, taking into account
the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to
existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300
feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest
within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout
the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
ornithologist or biologist, if project activities are determined to be adversely
affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified
87
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 8
ornithologist or biologist only in consultation with California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures and buffers shall remain in effect
until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest
is no longer active.
v. A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology,
survey date(s), map of identified active nests (if any), and protection
measures (if required), shall be prepared by the qualified ornithologist or
biologist and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his or
her designee, through the appropriate permit review process (e.g.,
demolition, construction, tree removal, etc.), and be completed to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the start of
demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning
activities.
16. NOISE AND VIBRATION NOTICE
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or
construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall ensure that a sign
measuring at least two feet by three feet shall be posted on construction fencing at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, and include the following:
a. Permitted construction days and hours;
b. A description of proposed construction activities;
c. Telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint; and
d. Contact information for City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a complaint related to fugitive dust,
pursuant to the requirements for compliance with BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the complaint and the
action taken to the City within three business days of receiving the complaint.
17. NOISE AND VIBRATION SIGNAGE
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or
construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall ensure that a sign
measuring at least two feet by three feet shall be posted on construction fencing at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, and include the following:
a. Permitted construction days and hours;
b. A description of proposed construction activities;
88
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 9
c. Telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint; and
d. Contact information for City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a complaint related to fugitive dust,
pursuant to the requirements for compliance with BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the complaint and the
action taken to the City within three business days of receiving the complaint.
18. NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, include on plans a
note that, during project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the
following measures to reduce noise during construction and demolition activity:
a. The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and 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 Plan shall
demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits pursuant to
Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of Cupertino Municipal Code. The
details of the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included in the applicable
construction documents and implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
Noise reduction measures selected and implemented shall be based on the type
of construction equipment used on the site, distance of construction activities
from sensitive receptor(s), site terrain, and other features on and surrounding
the site (e.g., trees, built environment) and may include, but not be limited to,
temporary construction noise attenuation walls, high quality mufflers. During
the entire active construction period, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall
demonstrate that compliance with the specified noise control requirements for
construction equipment and tools will reduce construction noise in compliance
with the City’s daytime and nighttime decibel limits.
b. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and
submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to
the start of the construction phase.
c. Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction
zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of
unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use
for more than 5 minutes.
89
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 10
d. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of
noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for
safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up
alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background
noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in
compliance with all safety requirements and law.
19. 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.
90
Resolution No. 2026-XX RM-2024-028 February 10, 2026
Page 11
The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for
business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.
20. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail
to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February, 2026, Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
91
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF FOUR OAK TREES IN
ASSOCIATION WITH REAR YARD IMPROVEMENTS AND A
PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 22068 SAN
FERNANDO COURT (A.P.N. 357 12 012)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TR-2024-043
Applicants: David Kuoppamaki
Location: 22068 San Fernando Court; APN: 357 12 012
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), together with the State
CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.)
(hereinafter, "CEQA Guidelines"), the City staff has independently studied the proposed
Project and has determined that the Project is exempt from environmental review
pursuant to the categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303 for the reasons
set forth in the staff report dated February 10, 2026 and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one
public meeting in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive public testimony on the Project, including the categorical CEQA
exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303, and reviewed and considered the
information contained in the staff report pertaining to the Project, all other pertinent
documents, and all written and oral statements received by the Planning Commission at
or prior to the public hearing; and
92
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 2
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows, with regard to this application,
that:
1. That the mature specimen trees with single trunk between twelve inches DBH and
twenty-four inches DBH, or multi-trunk between twenty-four inches DBH and forty-
eight inches DBH in R1, A1, A, RHS, and R2 zones will be replaced by planting a
replacement tree and/or by contribution to the City’s Tree Fund.
The removal of four specimen (oak) trees with diameters at breast height (DBH) of between
twelve and twenty-four inches is proposed by the applicant to accommodate rear yard grading.
The project is conditioned to provide replacement oak trees on the site, where feasible, in
conformance with the Municipal Code Ordinance requirements and proposes to contribution
to the City’s Tree Fund for all other replacements.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the
Project and the basis for the exemption prior to taking any approval actions on the Project,
and exercising its independent judgment, based upon the entire record before it, has
determined that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15303, which applies to new construction or conversion of single-family residences and
accessory structures; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission takes the
following actions:
1. Exercises its independent judgment and determines that the Project is exempt from
CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303. The exemption in CEQA
Guidelines section 15303 applies to new construction or conversion of single-family
residences and accessory structures. The proposed project is a new single-family
residence.
2. Approves the application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2024-043
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE
3 thereof. The conclusions and sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions
specified in this resolution are based, including those contained in the Public Hearing
record concerning Application no. TR-2024-043 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning
Commission Meeting of February 10, 2026, are hereby incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
93
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set consisting of twenty one (21) sheets, labeled Sheets
CRV1, C-0, C-2, PLN1 through PLN4, A0.1 through A0.3, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1,
A5.1 through A5.3, L-1 through L-3, and TOPO, submitted by the Applicants.
Plans shall be revised to preserve the 12-inch oak tree located adjacent to the rear
property line. This approval includes the removal of up to four oak trees with
diameters, as measured from 4.5 feet above grade, between 12 and 24 inches.
These plans are approved, with the modifications outlined above, and as may be
amended by conditions in this resolution.
2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. EXC-2025-007, EXC-2025-008, R-
2024-029, and RM-2024-028 shall be applicable to this approval.
3. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible for verifying 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.
4. TREE REPLACEMENT
The required tree replacement is either four (4) 36” box trees or eight (8) 24” box trees,
or a combination thereof meeting the requirements of Municipal Code Section
14.18.160, located in the rear yard of the property. The replacement trees shall be a
native oak species.
The replacement planting shall be planted on the subject property within 30 days of
tree removal. The applicant shall provide the Department of Community
Development adequate documentation, including but not limited to photographs,
receipts, or invoices, to verify that the replacement trees have been planted.
Should it be determined that planting of replacement trees in the quantity or a portion
of the quantity specified above cannot be accomplished in accordance with best
94
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 4
forestry management practices, the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee for each tree not
replaced on site in accordance with the in-lieu fee requirements outlined in Municipal
Code Section 14.18.160 (B).
5. PROTECTED TREES
The applicant understands that replacement trees may not be removed without a Tree
Removal Permit and that they shall be responsible for ensuring the proper
maintenance and care of the trees. The applicant shall also disclose the location and
species of all replacement trees on site upon sale of the property.
6. 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.
7. AVOID NESTING BIRDS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading and building permit, indicate the
following on all construction plans:
a. Demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, and tree removal/pruning activities
shall be scheduled to be completed prior to nesting season (February 1 through
August 31), if feasible.
b. If demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities
occur during the nesting season (February 1 and August 31), preconstruction
surveys shall be conducted as follows:
i. No more than 7 days prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-
disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities, in order to identify any active
nests with eggs or young birds on the site and surrounding area within 100
feet of construction or tree removal activities.
ii. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until
demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning
activities have been initiated in the area, after which surveys can be stopped.
95
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 5
As part of the preconstruction survey(s), the surveyor shall inspect all trees
and other possible nesting habitats in, and immediately adjacent to, the
construction areas for active nests, while ensuring that they do not disturb the
nests as follows:
1) For projects that require the demolition or construction one single-
family residence, ground disturbing activities affecting areas of up to
500 square feet, or the removal of up to three trees, the property owner
or a tree removal contractor, if necessary, is permitted to conduct the
preconstruction surveys to identify if there are any active nests. If any
active nests with eggs or young birds are identified, the project applicant
shall retain a qualified ornithologist or biologist to identify protective
measures.
2) For any other demolition, construction and ground disturbing activity
or the removal of four or more trees, a qualified ornithologist or biologist
shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct the preconstruction
surveys.
iii. If the preconstruction survey does not identify any active nests with eggs or
young birds that would be affected by demolition, construction, ground-
disturbing or tree removal/pruning activities, no further mitigating action is
required. If an active nest containing eggs or young birds is found sufficiently
close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, their locations shall be
documented, and the qualified ornithologist or biologist shall identify
protective measures to be implemented under their direction until the nests
no longer contain eggs or young birds.
iv. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, establishment of
clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing,
such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location
as determined by the qualified ornithologist or biologist, taking into account
the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to
existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300
feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest
within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout
the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
ornithologist or biologist, if project activities are determined to be adversely
affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified
ornithologist or biologist only in consultation with California Department of
96
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 6
Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures and buffers shall remain in effect
until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest
is no longer active.
v. A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology,
survey date(s), map of identified active nests (if any), and protection
measures (if required), shall be prepared by the qualified ornithologist or
biologist and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his or
her designee, through the appropriate permit review process (e.g.,
demolition, construction, tree removal, etc.), and be completed to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the start of
demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning
activities.
8. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit involving soil
disturbance, the project applicant shall provide written verification, including the
materials provided to contractors and construction crews, to the City confirming 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 these resources as follows:
a. Basic archaeological site indicators that may include, but are not limited to, darker
than surrounding soils of a friable nature; evidence of fires (ash, charcoal, fire
affected rock or earth); concentrations of stone, bone, or shellfish; artifacts of
stone, bone, or shellfish; evidence of living surfaces (e.g., floors); and burials,
either human or animal.
b. The potential for undiscovered archaeological resources or tribal cultural
resources on site.
c. The laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, including, but not
limited to, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990,
Public Resources Code Section 5097, and California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050 and Section 7052.
d. The protection procedures to follow should construction crews discover cultural
resources during project-related earthwork, include the following:
i. All soil disturbing work within 25 feet of the find shall cease.
97
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 7
ii. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide and
implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation, as needed, to define
the deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project area
to determine whether the resource is significant and would be affected by the
project.
iii. Any potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources found during
construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California
Department of Parks and Recreation forms by a qualified archaeologist. If the
resource is a tribal cultural resource, the consulting archaeologist shall consult
with the appropriate tribe, as determined by the Native American Heritage
Commission, to evaluate the significance of the resource and to recommend
appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation
measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed
project design, costs, and other considerations. The archeologist shall perform
this evaluation in consultation with the tribe.
9. NOISE AND VIBRATION NOTICE
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or
construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall ensure that a sign
measuring at least two feet by three feet shall be posted on construction fencing at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, and include the following:
a. Permitted construction days and hours;
b. A description of proposed construction activities;
c. Telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint; and
d. Contact information for City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a complaint related to fugitive dust,
pursuant to the requirements for compliance with BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the complaint and the
action taken to the City within three business days of receiving the complaint.
10. NOISE AND VIBRATION SIGNAGE
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or
construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall ensure that a sign
measuring at least two feet by three feet shall be posted on construction fencing at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, and include the following:
98
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 8
a. Permitted construction days and hours;
b. A description of proposed construction activities;
c. Telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint; and
d. Contact information for City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a complaint related to fugitive dust,
pursuant to the requirements for compliance with BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall
investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the complaint and the
action taken to the City within three business days of receiving the complaint.
11. NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, include on plans a
note that, during project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the
following measures to reduce noise during construction and demolition activity:
a. The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and 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 Plan shall
demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits pursuant to
Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of Cupertino Municipal Code. The
details of the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included in the applicable
construction documents and implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
Noise reduction measures selected and implemented shall be based on the type
of construction equipment used on the site, distance of construction activities
from sensitive receptor(s), site terrain, and other features on and surrounding
the site (e.g., trees, built environment) and may include, but not be limited to,
temporary construction noise attenuation walls, high quality mufflers. During
the entire active construction period, the Construction Noise Control Plan shall
demonstrate that compliance with the specified noise control requirements for
construction equipment and tools will reduce construction noise in compliance
with the City’s daytime and nighttime decibel limits.
b. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and
submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to
the start of the construction phase.
99
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 9
c. Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction
zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of
unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use
for more than 5 minutes.
d. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of
noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for
safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up
alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background
noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in
compliance with all safety requirements and law.
12. 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.
100
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-043 February 10, 2026
Page 10
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.
13. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail
to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of
Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February, 2026, Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Piu Ghosh Santosh Rao
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
101
From:
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:more on agenda item #2 san fernando court
Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 4:58:11 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.
Hi Planning Commission,
More on agenda item #2 san fernando court
Can you please ask the planning staff to show their math on the max square footage allowed?
My recollection is that homes on hillsides were not allowed as much floor area as those on flat
land.
Thanks,
Rhoda
102
From:
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Item #2 on the Agenda for January 27, 2026
Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 5:13:35 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.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing in hopes that you will reject the proposed terracing of the yard that abuts the
preserve at McClellan Ranch. There are simply too many issues with the proposal.
1) The property borders one of the few open spaces in the city. This project could be
damaging to the wildlife and is not appropriate for a riparian area. What sort of environmental
study was done to justify this project?
2) Where will the construction equipment and material be staged? Will it be staged at the top
of the property to annoy the neighbors? Or will it be placed on city property at the bottom of
the hill to annoy residents walking through McClellan Ranch and potentially damage
the environment? If the latter, the city should charge rent for the use of their property.
3) The removal of the oaks is particularly problematic because again, older trees will be
removed for a construction project. There is no reason to believe that based on the plans, there
will be room to replace them. So, they will just pay "in lieu" of fees.
4) The current owners of the property were aware of the limitations of the property when
they purchased it. It is my understanding that they have lived in the property, so they have had
adequate time to decide to live with the limitations or list it for sale. Modifications to any
property should not be done with solely the needs of the owners in mind unless it is a safety
issue; in this case, the neighbors and public need to be considered.
For the above reasons and more, I hope that you will reject this proposal.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat
103
From:
To:Public Comments
Subject:Objections To Exemptions For 22068 San Fernando Court: Tuesday January 27, 2026
Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 10:16:06 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 letter in the packet for the January 27 Planning Meeting. Thank you!
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I would like to voice my objections to the request for approval to terrace the property at 22068
San Fernando Court in Cupertino. The owner knew when they bought the property that it was
not zoned as such, and they are requesting a special privilege to change the slope of the
hillside behind their house. There is no mention in the planning meeting agenda that this
property happens to be adjacent to a popular nature trail that runs through Blackberry Farm. I
walk that area frequently as do so many of our residents, and it would not only create an
eyesore, but it would also grossly damage a protected natural riparian area that is home to all
manners of birds, bats, coyotes, rabbits, deer and other animals.
Likewise I object to the owner’s request to remove 5 heritage oak trees on the property. The
particular property also has a giant eucalyptus tree (non-protected) that is frequented by bats,
owls, and other birds that would likely be damaged or removed which would result in the
exposure of a bare hill, the proposed decks, and other building structures. The property looks
down on the bocce courts, lawn, and picnic area where people gather. How is it fair or right to
allow one resident to make such changes without others requesting to do the same? It’s a
slippery slope (pardon the pun) that we don’t want to go down lest we ruin the look and feel of
one of Cupertino’s most precious natural walking and recreation areas.
Please note that I also highly object to allowing land owners to pay an in-leu fee for failure to
replace heritage or protected trees that they have removed. It sends a horrible message that you
can destroy very mature trees and precious habitat and pay for the privilege.
Thank you so much for your consideration in this manner.
Sincerely,
Danessa Techmanski
32-year Cupertino resident
104
From:
To:City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Public Comments
Subject:comments agenda #2 1/27/2026
Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 9:06:39 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.
Hi Planning Commission,
I just noticed in the agenda that I also need to address to “publiccomment,” so most of the
following is a duplicate of what I sent earlier.
More on agenda item #2 san fernando court
Can you please ask the planning staff to show their math on the max square footage allowed?
My recollection is that homes on hillsides were not allowed as much floor area as those on flat
land.
Furthermore, different sources show varying square footage of the property – which one is
correct?
---
I am writing you regarding 1/27 Agenda #2 new home construction san fernando ct. JUST
SAY NO
You are being asked to vote on a proposal that does not yet exist!
This is not okay and I hope that you will agree to postpone the item until such time that
you have a real proposal to review.
The numbered items below correspond to the resolutions that you are being asked to vote on:
1. HILLSIDE EXCEPTION Please do not make a hillside exception. The proposed
project appears to be nothing like its neighbors. Some neighbors do have retaining walls
– but they are very hard to see and they are very far away from their backyard property
lines that abut blackberry farm. This proposal has retaining walls very close to the back
yard property line and the park. That is not okay. Please vote NO on the hillside
exception.
Please also go to Blackberry Farm and check out the site from the backyard side.
It is just before you get to the sand volleyball and at the end of the rock wall. If you
look closely, you will see some other homes that are mostly hidden behind trees. I
can’t see how these retaining walls could be built without harming the neighbors or our
parkland.
PLEASE ALSO CONSIDER THE IMPACTS ON NON-HERITAGE TREES ON
THE HILLSIDE. There are many mature trees on the hillside. The grading would
clear everything and also permanently those trees growing near the retaining walls. We
cannot see what the views would look like from the park. The plot plan doesn’t appear
to reflect what the final plot plan would be and doesn’t appear to include fencing for
105
106
3. DESIGN REVIEW I disagree with staff on this one. First, we can’t even tell how the
proposed conditions would affect the plans. Also, The proposed home is way out of
scale with the neighborhood on a substandard lot. It is not at all harmonious. I recall the
lot is around 6700 sq ft in a 7500 sq ft minimum lot size area. The visual impacts to our
public park would be very bad. And there’s more – it could also impact the flora and
fauna in the adjacent sensitive riparian area. Know that the roots of oak trees extend
further than the dripline. Mitigations on insufficient. Vote no.
4. FINDINGS FOR A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT IMHO, this statement is
incorrect, “The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or
injurious to property improvements in the vicinity,” this statement is incorrect: “The
proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood.”
This statement is incorrect: “Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been
reasonably mitigated.” Please see my comments on #1 – major impact to adjacent
property’s hillsides and trees and impacts to natural habitat and recreational values at
adjacent park. Vote no.
5. TREES: I am 100% against cutting down any heritage oak trees. Also, the staff
report is confusing. It says that trees would be replaced (which would take generations
for it to really happen). But then in the resolution, it says that the property owner can get
out of it by paying a fee. Please explain why. The proposed resolution allows an in-
lieu fee for removed trees on pages 3 and 4: Should it be determined that planting of
replacement trees in the quantity or a portion of the quantity specified above cannot be
107
accomplished in accordance with best forestry management practices, the applicant
shall pay an in-lieu fee for each tree not replaced on site in accordance with the in-
lieu fee requirements outlined in Municipal Code Section 14.18.160 (B). Vote no.
FLAT ROOF: Unlike the staff report, I am okay with a flat roof in the neighborhood. There’s
actually one across the street from me. My neighbors with the flat had tried to submit for an
old-style Spanish home and it had been rejected by planning and that was really sad. They
never built anything, so the flat-roofed home is still there. Also, the house next door to the
proposed house was going to have a standing seam metal roof, and that was also rejected by
the planning department and I thought that was a big shame. The original concept for that
home was quite lovely. The mass of the proposed home is way too big for the lot.
In closing, the property owner bought a substandard and tricky lot. The property owner is
trying to maximize the square footage allowed on the lot. Come to think of it, I thought that on
hillsides that there is a different calculation for maximum square footage. But I diverged. The
property owner should be allowed to build a home but not to the detriment of the neighbors or
the adjacent wildlife habitat. There is no reason that the City should allow the property owner
to maximize square footage if it causes harm. The property owner should come back with a
project that does no harm and that potentially has less square footage. Many of the homes
wind up having large decks for backyards. They are not creating new land with ugly retaining
walls that harm our riparian corridor and our recreational values at Blackberry Farm.
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
108
109
110
3. DESIGN REVIEW I disagree with staff on this one. First, we can’t even tell how the
proposed conditions would affect the plans. Also, The proposed home is way out of
scale with the neighborhood on a substandard lot. It is not at all harmonious. I recall the
lot is around 6700 sq ft in a 7500 sq ft minimum lot size area. The visual impacts to our
public park would be very bad. And there’s more – it could also impact the flora and
fauna in the adjacent sensitive riparian area. Know that the roots of oak trees extend
further than the dripline. Mitigations on insufficient. Vote no.
4. FINDINGS FOR A MINOR RESIDENTIAL PERMIT IMHO, this statement is
incorrect, “The granting of the permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or
injurious to property improvements in the vicinity,” this statement is incorrect: “The
proposed project is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood.”
This statement is incorrect: “Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been
reasonably mitigated.” Vote no.
5. TREES: I am 100% against cutting down any heritage oak trees. Also, the staff
report is confusing. It says that trees would be replaced (which would take generations
for it to really happen). But then in the resolution, it says that the property owner can get
out of it by paying a fee. Please explain why. The proposed resolution allows an in-
lieu fee for removed trees on pages 3 and 4: Should it be determined that planting of
replacement trees in the quantity or a portion of the quantity specified above cannot be
accomplished in accordance with best forestry management practices, the applicant
shall pay an in-lieu fee for each tree not replaced on site in accordance with the in-
lieu fee requirements outlined in Municipal Code Section 14.18.160 (B). Vote no.
FLAT ROOF: Unlike the staff report, I am okay with a flat roof in the neighborhood. There’s
actually one across the street from me. My neighbors with the flat had tried to submit for an
old-style Spanish home and it had been rejected by planning and that was really sad. They
never built anything, so the flat-roofed home is still there. Also, the house next door to the
proposed house was going to have a standing seam metal roof, and that was also rejected by
the planning department and I thought that was a big shame. The original concept for that
home was quite lovely. The mass of the proposed home is way too big for the lot.
In closing, the property owner bought a substandard and tricky lot. The property owner is
trying to maximize the square footage allowed on the lot. Come to think of it, I thought that on
hillsides that there is a different calculation for maximum square footage. But I diverged. The
property owner should be allowed to build a home but not to the detriment of the neighbors or
the adjacent wildlife habitat. There is no reason that the City should allow the property owner
to maximize square footage if it causes harm. The property owner should come back with a
project that does no harm and that potentially has less square footage. Many of the homes
wind up having large decks for backyards. They are not creating new land with ugly retaining
walls that harm our riparian corridor and our recreational values at Blackberry Farm.
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
111
112
113
114
A0.2
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
N
E
W
NE
W
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
F
O
R
:
WE
N
H
A
N
L
Y
U
22
0
6
8
S
A
N
F
E
R
N
A
N
D
O
C
O
U
R
T
CU
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
,
C
A
9
5
0
1
4
AP
N
#
3
5
7
-
1
2
-
0
1
2
PA
G
E
T
I
T
L
E
DATE:
SCALE:
DRAWN BY:
PLAN NO.:
SHEET:
REVISIONS DATE
2024.09.03
PER SHEET
DAVID
2402
4
0
8
.
3
5
7
.
0
8
1
8
11
5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14845 Agenda Date: 2/10/2026
Agenda #: 5.
Subject:Review of the proposed Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation and determination of the
location, purpose, and extent of property disposition for consistency with the General Plan.
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) finding that the Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation (APN
326-27-053) is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) finding that the location, purpose, and extent of the disposition
of the Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the General Plan.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/5/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™116
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 10, 2026
Subject
Review of the proposed Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation and
determination of the location, purpose, and extent of property disposition for
consistency with the General Plan.
Recommended Action
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) finding that the Mary Avenue public right-of-
way vacation (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) finding that the location, purpose, and extent
of the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is consistent
with the General Plan.
Discussion
The Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is Site ID 10 of the General Plan’s
Housing Element, adopted by the City on May 14, 2024, and which the California
Department of Housing and Community Development found in substantial
compliance with the State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code § 65580 et seq) on
September 4, 2024. The site is in the Garden Gate neighborhood and is located east
of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out from 0.79 acres of
underutilized right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway
85, that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include multi-family
residential uses, a dog park, condominiums, and Highway 85.
In response to an August 18, 2022 Request for Proposals (RFP) for affordable
housing development project at this property, the site has an active proposal for a
40-unit, two story affordable (100% Low and Very Low Income) housing project
developed by Charities Housing. The project will include 19 units for residents
with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
The City Council is responsible for approving public right-of-way vacations.
However, pursuant to Government Code section 65402(a), the Planning
Commission is authorized to review certain proposed vacations for consistency
117
with the City’s General Plan.
The General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040 includes the Housing Element
that lists the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-27-053) as a priority housing site
for a 100% affordable housing development (Site ID 10, Table B4-8). All priority
housing sites, including Mary Avenue, were rezoned for housing development.
Additionally, the proposed Mary Avenue project requires a public right-of-way
vacation. The proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan since it
involves a priority housing site identified in the Housing Element and effectuates
the pertinent goals, policies, strategies, and objectives set forth in the Housing
Element, including:
- Policy HE-1-2: Housing Densities (provide a full range of densities for ownership
and rental housing) and corresponding strategies and objectives:
- Strategy HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions (“Provide
adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to
accommodate the RHNA while maintaining a balanced land use plan that
offers opportunities for, among other things, services, and amenities”). By
furthering a high-density 100 percent affordable housing project in the
northern area of the City (north of Stevens Creek Boulevard), the Mary
Avenue right-of-way vacation will assist the City in meeting the Policy’s
Objective of “4,588 units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687 low-, 755
moderate-, and 1,953 above moderate-income units) prioritized in areas
with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the City’s north side ”
- Strategy HE-1-3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options
(“Explore innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater
flexibility and affordability in the housing stock that would address
housing needs including special-needs groups, and lower-income
households”). By furthering a housing project that provides 19 units for
residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities, the Mary Avenue
right-of-way vacation will assist the City in meeting the Policy’s Quantified
Objective of “200 lower-income units to improve housing mobility and
reduce displacement risk.”
-Policy HE-2.3: Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons
with Special Needs and corresponding Strategies:
118
- Strategy HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development (“Work with
housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-income
housing for special-needs groups”). The Mary Avenue right-of-way
vacation furthers a 100 percent affordable housing project including 19
units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities, which
will assist the City in meeting the Policy’s Quantified Objective to “Create
opportunity for 450 units for lower-income households that will be within
close proximity to services and other resources in high-opportunity areas.
Include development of 250 units affordable to special-needs, lower-income
households to reduce displacement risk for these populations.”
- Strategy HE-2.3.6: Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-Based Housing
(“Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned by the
City or other public entities. The inventory will include land donated and
accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city.
The City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit
developer interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’.”)
The Mary Avenue right-of-way vacation furthers the overall Policy strategy
regarding disposition of surplus properties.
- Strategy HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities
(“Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of units
for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing
developments.”) The Mary Avenue right-of-way vacation will further a
housing project by Charities Housing, which is a registered 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization, which includes 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities. This development will allow the
City to meet the Policy’s Objective of “housing units for persons with
disabilities to reduce displacement risk.”
-Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, Table B4-8 Priority Housing
Sites in Residential Zones
- Additional Site Details lists the Mary Avenue site as Site ID 10, stating “Site
10 is located in the Garden Gate neighborhood and is located east of
Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out from unused
right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway 85 that
includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include multi-family
residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.” The City’s
General Plan explicitly anticipates the vacation of the right-of-way,
119
including vacation of the on-street parking in its Housing Element for the
purpose of developing a 40-unit, two-story affordable (100% Low and Very
Low Income) housing project including 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities.
Section 65402(c) also sets forth that the Planning Commission shall make a
determination regarding whether the location, purpose and extent of the
disposition of property for an affordable housing project is consistent with the
City’s General Plan. Since the Mary Avenue Property (APN 326-27-053) is a site
listed on the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan, and for all the reasons
described in detail above, this request is being submitted to the Planning
Commission for determination as to the conformity of the location, purpose and
extent of the disposition of the Mary Avenue Property (APN 326-27-053) with the
City’s General Plan.
Environmental Impact
The City has performed an environmental assessment for the Mary Avenue
housing project, and the Planning Commission has determined that it falls within
the Categorical Exemption set forth in Section 15332 which exempts Class 32 Infill
Development Projects because (a) the project is consistent with the applicable
general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development
occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not
result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. None of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply to this project. The proposed vacation of the
Vacation Area does not constitute a separate project under CEQA and is an
implementation action within the scope of the affordable housing development
project. Based on the whole of the administrative record, Planning Commission
recommends that City Council adopts a Categorical Exemption per CEQA
Guidelines section 15332 for this project.
Next Steps
The Planning Commission’s determination will be considered by the City Council,
currently anticipated for March 3, 2026, as part of the Council’s review of the
proposed Mary Avenue right of way vacation.
Sustainability Impact
There is no sustainability impact.
120
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Jennifer Chu, Senior Civil Engineer
Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Reviewed by: Gian Martire, Senior Planner
Michael Woo, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development
Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
1 - Draft Resolution
2 - Draft Resolution
3 - Map of Parcel
121
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO FINDING AND REPORTING THAT VACATION OF THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE MARY AVENUE
PROPERTY (APN 326-27-053) IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY
OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-27-053) (“Property”) is
situated along the westerly edge or Mary Avenue, between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Lubec Street, as further described in Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, the Property is listed as Site ID 10 of the Priority Housing Sites
in Residential Zones, Appendix B to the Housing Element of the Cupertino
General Plan. The Property has an active proposal for development of a 40-unit,
two-story, affordable housing project to be developed by Charities Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently owned by the City of Cupertino, and
a portion of the Property, to the extent such portion is within the public right-of-
way within Parcel 1 on the Parcel Map filed for Record in the Office of the
Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on May 2, 2023, in Book
953 of Maps, Pages 53 and 54, attached hereto as Attachment B, is designated as
public right-of-way, and is being utilized for on-street parking (the “Vacation
Area”); and
WHEREAS, the City must vacate the Vacation Area within the Property in
order to facilitate construction of the housing project; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65402(a) requires that
City’s Planning Commission make a determination that the vacation of the
Vacation Area is in conformance with the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-
2040 includes the Housing Element that lists the Property as priority housing Site
10; and
WHEREAS, the vacation of the Vacation Area will facilitate an affordable
housing project that meets several goals, policies, strategies, and objectives set
forth in the Housing Element included in the City of Cupertino General Plan:
Community Vision 2015-2040; and
122
01276.0036 2086072.1
Resolution No. ___________________
Page 2
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence
presented by the City, city staff, and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino does hereby find and report as follows:
Section 1: The Planning Commission has duly considered the full record before it,
including the staff report and presentation, facts, exhibits, public testimony and
other evidence and materials submitted or provided to the Commission.
Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: The City has performed an environmental assessment for the Mary
Avenue housing project, and the Planning Commission has determined that it falls
within the Categorical Exemption set forth in Section 15332 which exempts Class
32 Infill Development Projects because (a) the project is consistent with the
applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well
as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed
development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat
for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not
result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. None of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply to this project. The proposed vacation of the
Vacation Area does not constitute a separate project under CEQA and is an
implementation action within the scope of the affordable housing development
project. Based on the whole of the administrative record, Planning Commission
recommends that City Council adopts a Categorical Exemption per CEQA
Guidelines section 15332 for this project.
Section 3: The Planning Commission finds and reports on, in accordance with state
law based on the evidence in the public record that the vacation of the Vacation
Area is not inconsistent with the City’s General Plan (Community Vision 2015-
2040) since it involves a priority housing site identified in the Housing Element and
because it will assist the City in meeting the pertinent goals, policies, strategies, and
objectives set forth in the Housing Element, including:
a. Policy HE-1-2: Housing Densities (provide a full range of densities
for ownership and rental housing) and corresponding Strategies:
123
01276.0036 2086072.1
Resolution No. ___________________
Page 3
(i) Strategy HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions
(“Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA while maintaining a balanced land use
plan that offers opportunities for, among other things, services, and amenities”).
The Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation will assist the City in
implementing Strategy HE-1.3.1 by furthering high-density housing that will help
the City meet the Objective of “4,588 units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687
low-, 755 moderate-, and 1,953 above moderate-income units) prioritized “in areas
with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the City’s north side ... and the
Garden Gate neighborhood ….”
(ii) Strategy HE-1-3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing
Options (“Explore innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater
flexibility and affordability in the housing stock that would address housing needs
including special-needs groups, and lower-income households”) by furthering a
housing project that provides 19 units for residents with intellectual or
developmental disabilities. The provision of these 19 units will assist the City in
meeting the Quantified Objective of “200 lower-income units to improve housing
mobility and reduce displacement risk.”
b. Policy HE-2.3: Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for
Persons with Special Needs and corresponding Strategies:
(i) Strategy HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development
(“Work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-
income housing for special-needs groups.”). The Mary Avenue project is a 100
percent affordable housing project which will provide 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities, and will thus assist the City in meeting
the Quantified Objective to “Create opportunity for 450 units for lower-income
households that will be within close proximity to services and other resources in
high-opportunity areas. Include development of 250 units affordable to special-
needs, lower-income households to reduce displacement risk for these
populations.”
(ii) Strategy HE-2.3.6: Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-
Based Housing (“Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned
by the City or other public entities. The inventory will include land donated and
accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city. The
City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit developer
interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’.”). The vacation of the
Vacation Area is consistent with the overall policy strategy regarding disposition
of surplus properties because it reflects a successful solicitation of developer
124
01276.0036 2086072.1
Resolution No. ___________________
Page 4
interest and because it will allow a non-profit developer an opportunity to build a
100 percent affordable project on the surplus land.
(iii) Strategy HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities (“Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of
units for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing
developments.”). The vacation of the Vacation Area will further a housing project
that provides 19 units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities,
which will assist the City in meeting the Objective of providing “housing units
for persons with disabilities to reduce displacement risk.”
c. Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, Table B4-8 Priority
Housing Sites in Residential Zones – Additional Site Details lists the Mary Avenue
site as Site ID 10. It states that “Site 10 is located in the Garden Gate neighborhood
and is located east of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out
from unused right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway
85 that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include multi-family
residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.” The City’s General
Plan explicitly anticipates the vacation of the right-of-way, including vacation of
the on-street parking in its Housing Element for the purpose of developing a 40-
unit, two-story affordable (100% Low and Very Low Income) housing project
including 19 units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of Cupertino this 10th day of February,2026, by the following vote:
Members of the Planning Commission
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
Date
125
01276.0036 2086072.1
Resolution No. ___________________
Page 5
ATTEST:
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Date
126
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That certain real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California
legally described as follows:
All of Parcel 1, as shown on that certain Parcel Map, in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, filed for Record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa
Clara, State of California, on May 2, 2023, in Book 953 of Maps, Pages 53 and 54.
APN: 326-27-053
127
ATTACHMENT B
PARCEL MAP
128
01276.0036 2086072.1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO FINDING THAT DISPOSITION BY THE CITY OF CITY-
OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT MARY AVENUE (APN 326-27-053) IS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-27-053) is situated along
the westerly edge of Mary Avenue, between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lubec
Street as set forth in more detail in Attachment A (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the property is listed as Site ID 10 of the Priority Housing Sites
in Residential Zones, Appendix B to the Housing Element of the Cupertino
General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040; and
WHEREAS, the property has an active proposal for development of a 40-
unit, two-story, affordable housing project to be developed by Charities Housing
that meets several goals, policies, strategies, and objectives set forth in the Housing
Element included in the City of Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-
2040 (“Housing Project”); and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65402(c) requires that
City’s Planning Commission make a determination that the location, purpose and
extent of the disposition of the Property for the Housing Project is in conformity
with said adopted general plan or part thereof ; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence
presented by the City, city staff, and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino does hereby find and report as follows:
Section 1: The Planning Commission has duly considered the full record before it,
including the staff report and presentation, facts, exhibits, public testimony and
other evidence and materials submitted or provided to the Commission.
Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference.
129
Resolution No. _____________
Page 2
01276.0036 2086072.1
Section 2: The City has performed an environmental assessment for the Housing
Project, and the Planning Commission has determined that it falls within the
Categorical Exemption set forth in Section 15332 which exempts Class 32 Infill
Development Projects because (a) the project is consistent with the applicable
general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development
occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not
result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. None of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply to this project. Based on the whole of the
administrative record, Planning Commission recommends that City Council
adopts a Categorical Exemption per CEQA Guidelines section 15332 for this
project.
Section 3: General Plan Conformity. The location, purpose and extent of the
proposed Housing Project have been submitted to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission hereby finds and reports that the Project is in conformity
with the City’s General Plan, including with respect to the location, purpose and
extent of the proposed Housing Project. The Housing Project involves a priority
housing site identified in the Housing Element and will assist the City in meeting
the pertinent goals, policies, strategies, and objectives set forth in the Housing
Element, including:
a. Policy HE-1-2: Housing Densities (provide a full range of densities
for ownership and rental housing) and corresponding Strategies:
(i) Strategy HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions
(“Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA while maintaining a balanced land use
plan that offers opportunities for, among other things, services, and amenities”).
The Housing Project will assist the City in implementing Strategy HE-1.3.1 by
furthering high-density housing that will help the City meet the Objective of “4,588
units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687 low-, 755 moderate-, and 1,953 above
moderate-income units) prioritized “in areas with high rates of housing cost
burden, such as the City’s north side ... and the Garden Gate neighborhood ….”
130
Resolution No. _____________
Page 3
01276.0036 2086072.1
(ii) Strategy HE-1-3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing
Options (“Explore innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater
flexibility and affordability in the housing stock that would address housing needs
including special-needs groups, and lower-income households”) by furthering a
housing project that provides 19 units for residents with intellectual or
developmental disabilities. The provision of these 19 units will assist the City in
meeting the Quantified Objective of “200 lower-income units to improve housing
mobility and reduce displacement risk.”
b. Policy HE-2.3: Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for
Persons with Special Needs and corresponding Strategies:
(i) Strategy HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development
(“Work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-
income housing for special-needs groups.”). The Housing Project is a 100 percent
affordable housing project which will provide 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities, and will thus assist the City in meeting
the Quantified Objective to “Create opportunity for 450 units for lower-income
households that will be within close proximity to services and other resources in
high-opportunity areas. Include development of 250 units affordable to special-
needs, lower-income households to reduce displacement risk for these
populations.”
(ii) Strategy HE-2.3.6: Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-
Based Housing (“Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned
by the City or other public entities. The inventory will include land donated and
accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city. The
City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit developer
interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’.”). The Housing
Project is consistent with the overall policy strategy regarding disposition of
surplus properties because it reflects a successful solicitation of developer interest
and because it will allow a non-profit developer an opportunity to build a 100
percent affordable project on the surplus land.
(iii) Strategy HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities (“Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of
units for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing
developments.”). The Housing Project provides 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities, which will assist the City in meeting the
131
Resolution No. _____________
Page 4
01276.0036 2086072.1
Objective of providing “housing units for persons with disabilities to reduce
displacement risk.”
c. Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, Table B4-8 Priority
Housing Sites in Residential Zones – Additional Site Details lists the Housing
Project as Site ID 10. It states that “Site 10 is located in the Garden Gate
neighborhood and is located east of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel
carved out from unused right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent
to Highway 85 that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include
multi-family residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.” The
City’s General Plan explicitly Housing Project in its Housing Element for the
purpose of developing a 40-unit, two-story affordable (100% Low and Very Low
Income) housing project including 19 units for residents with intellectual or
developmental disabilities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of Cupertino this 10th day of February, 2026, by the following vote:
Members of the Planning Commission
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
________
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
________________________
Date
132
Resolution No. _____________
Page 5
01276.0036 2086072.1
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That certain real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of
California legally described as follows:
All of Parcel 1, as shown on that certain Parcel Map, in the City of Cupertino, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, filed for Record in the Office of the Recorder of the County
of Santa Clara, State of California, on May 2, 2023, in Book 953 of Maps, Pages 53 and
54.
APN: 326-27-053
133
134
135
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14846 Agenda Date: 2/10/2026
Agenda #: 6.
Subject:An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan,including a summary of
Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback on
the agenda packet attachments.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/5/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™136
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 10, 2026
Subject
An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary
of Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide
feedback on the agenda packet attachments.
Discussion
With substantial progress made on implementing the recommended projects from the
2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, a new,
comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is being developed that will build on
those successes and address evolving community needs. Additionally, this unified,
citywide plan will align bicycle and pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs
of motorized vehicles. This coordinated approach ensures consistency across policies
and projects, avoids duplication, and addresses overlapping concerns.
The City Council approved the FY 24/25 City Work Program on April 3, 2024, with the
ATP included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation
Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to wholly fund
the Plan's development. On December 3, 2024, the City Council authorized the City
Manager to award a contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc., for development of an
ATP.
Phase 1 Summary
Phase 1 of the ATP occurred between March and June 2025. It included policy review,
community outreach, and technical analysis to develop data-driven project
recommendations. The first step of Phase 1 was to develop a Plan Review Memo to
ensure the ATP is consistent with and supports local and regional policies, including
Cupertino plans like the General Plan’s Mobility Element and Vision Zero Action Plan,
the Countywide Active Transportation Plan, and other relevant documents.
137
Phase 1 also resulted in a Vision, Goals, and Objectives Memo. This document captured
the shared vision that Cupertino should be a community where walking, biking, and
rolling are easy, safe, and comfortable for everyone. The ATP’s vision, goals, and
objectives were developed by consolidating similar and overlapping statements from
existing Cupertino plans and refining them using input gathered during Phase 1
outreach to also reflect today's community needs and concerns. The community ranked
these goals in order of importance, as shown below:
1. Safety: Consistent with the Vision Zero Action Plan, pursue an active
transportation network that reduces the number of serious and fatal crashes
involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active transportation users to zero.
Enact measures to anticipate human error and minimize the impact of traffic
crashes for all roadway users.
2. Accessibility: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that
offers comfortable and convenient walking and biking options to key
destinations for all residents and visitors in the City.
3. Maintenance: Active transportation needs should be considered and integrated
in all City roadway maintenance activities.
4. Sustainability: Advance environmental quality and economic prosperity for the
City by providing inviting active transportation facilities that encourage frequent
usage and improve adoption of all non-vehicle modes of travel, resulting in a
reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(GHGs).
5. Multimodal Balance: Consider multimodal priorities and impacts of all projects
to improve sustainable transportation options throughout the City. Limit impacts
to all other transportation modes whenever possible, including transit and
personal vehicles.
6. Fairness: Provide a multimodal transportation system that is equally distributed
across all neighborhoods in Cupertino.
During Phase 1, the project team also conducted a Needs Assessment and an Existing
Conditions Review. These documents examined the City’s transportation network in
detail, identifying where walkers and bikers feel stressed or disconnected. Analyses
such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress were applied to determine areas
in the City where existing short driving trips could realistically shift to walking or
biking. Together, these analysis methods established a clear picture of where gaps are
greatest and where investments could potentially yield the greatest community benefits.
In parallel with the analysis task, staff reached out to the community to learn which
destinations they want to travel to and what barriers prevent them from walking or
biking. Residents consistently expressed concerns about safety on the Vision Zero High-
Injury Network (HIN), the need for improved connectivity between neighborhoods and
138
schools, the need to consider potential project impacts on drivers, and the importance of
designing facilities for people of all ages and abilities. Feedback from the community
helped validate the technical analysis, and together, these two sources, along with state
and federal design guidance documents such as the Caltrans Design Information
Bulletin Number 94 and the Federal Highway Administration Bikeway Selection Guide,
were leveraged to develop draft network recommendations.
Draft project prioritization criteria that align with the Plan goals were established to
assist in ranking the draft network recommendations. The scoring metrics were selected
to be consistent with community goals and VTA Measure B funding requirements.
These criteria were presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (August 20, 2025),
Planning Commission (September 9, 2025), and City Council (November 4, 2025) for
review and public comment. These draft project prioritization criteria included the
following metrics to rank recommended projects:
• Collision History
• Stress Level
• School Proximity
• High Frequency Transit Proximity
• Parks & Other Destination Proximity
• Active Trip Potential
• Roadway Impact
• Public Input
Phase 2 Summary
Following Phase 1, the project transitioned to the Network Recommendations Phase
(Phase 2). All Phase 1 documents can be referenced on the project webpage at
www.cupertino.gov/atp. This information was included in the staff report (Attachment
1) for the September 09, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. During this phase, public
engagement continued, with the community encouraged to review and comment on the
draft network recommendations. Phase 2 ran from August 20 to November 30 and
consisted of eight pop-up events and three public hearings. The online input webmap
was also updated to allow community members to review and comment on the project
recommendations using the project webpage.
Phase 2 public outreach once again highlighted repeated concerns about intersection
conflicts, particularly with right-turning vehicles, limited visibility, red light running,
and speeding through major intersections. For pedestrian projects, respondents strongly
supported the proposed Class I shared-use facilities (Tamien Innu Trail, Union Pacific
corridor, and Lawrence Mitty Trail). For the Lawrence Mitty Trail, the community
specifically noted the value of extending the shared-use path northward and into Santa
Clara to improve school access. There was also broad support for the recommended
sidewalk projects. Participants noted that safety issues at intersections become more
pronounced during commuting hours due to the high volume of traffic. The
139
intersections most frequently mentioned were those along Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Bollinger Road, Prospect Road, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue.
The community’s preferred pedestrian projects were:
• Tamien Innu
• Lawrence Mitty Trail
• Blaney Ave and Stevens Creek Blvd (Typology A, B, C Intersection)
• Union Pacific Trail
• Pacifica Dr and Torre Ave (Typology A Intersection)
For bicycling, popular projects included upgrading bike lanes on corridors such as
Homestead Road and Blaney Avenue, and addressing intersection safety issues along
Stevens Creek Boulevard, especially near Highway 85 and De Anza College. The
community’s preferred bicycle projects were:
• Stevens Creek Blvd (Separated Bike Lanes)
• Blaney Ave (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Homestead Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
• Bollinger Rd (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Stelling Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
Overall, participants expressed support for enhanced network connections to schools
and requested that some of the proposed buffered bike lanes be upgraded to separated
bikeways to improve safety due to high-speed traffic. The corridors that received the
most feedback included the recommended shared-use paths, as well as Homestead
Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, and Bollinger Road. Many participants
favored the suggested shared-use paths, expressing that they would provide safe
alternatives to major roadways and intersections. Concerns about speeding and unsafe
intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard were highlighted, particularly near
Highway 85 and De Anza College. Separated bikeways were supported on Foothill
Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Wolfe Road. Most unique comments were regarding the
recommended neighborhood bike routes, with overall support for the enhanced
neighborhood network serving schools.
Across both pedestrian and bicycle projects, recurring priorities were improving safety
for students travelling to schools (Lincoln Elementary, Monta Vista High, and Cupertino
High were referenced the most), implementing traffic calming and speed-reduction
measures on local streets (speed tables, RRFBs, and when legally permissible
implementing automated speed enforcement measures), strengthening connectivity
between parks, schools, and neighborhoods, and improving intersection safety.
Commission and Council Feedback
Following Phase 1, the ATP was taken to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning
Commission, and City Council to solicit feedback on the ATP and the draft project
140
prioritization criteria. Based on the Council's direction and the Commissions’ feedback,
staff revised both the draft prioritization criteria and draft policy and program
recommendations to address comments from the three bodies. Additionally, staff
prepared two new policy memos to accompany the ATP, which will be applied to new
ATP projects to better evaluate potential project impacts and project effectiveness.
A review of the Commission and Council feedback showed clear consensus among the
Commissions and the Council regarding each body’s comments on the ATP and the
draft project prioritization criteria. These areas of agreement were:
• Safety should be prioritized, especially near schools and on the Vision Zero HIN.
• Scoring criteria should emphasize objective, data-based measures, and Fairness
should be removed as a criterion.
• Support for improving future decision-making with more robust data collection.
• Technology solutions need greater emphasis.
Specifically, on August 20, 2025, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission provided the
following comments to staff:
• The Commission emphasized considering road maintenance before approving
new projects.
• Concerns were raised about including public likes and dislikes in the evaluation
process, and it was suggested that they be treated cautiously.
• Calls were made to ensure decisions are based on data, and to avoid penalizing
projects that involve parking or lane removal, as those decisions should be left to
the City Council.
• There was strong support for prioritizing safety, with extra points suggested for
projects near schools and along high-injury corridors.
• The evolving nature of the City was acknowledged, with a push to ensure plans
address both current and future needs, particularly in growing residential areas.
On September 9, 2025, the Planning Commission provided feedback to staff through the
following motion:
• Access Criteria: Award fifteen points if within one-half mile of a school and
include senior housing and senior facilities in the “Parks & Other Destinations
Proximity” definition.
• Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Rename “Sustainability” to “Connectivity”
and award ten points for being within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-stress
facility, raising the section maximum to twenty points.
• Balance Criteria: Subtract five points if five or more regularly used parking
spaces are removed, and subtract fifteen points if a car lane is eliminated for ten
percent or more of the project length.
141
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is subjective, unmeasurable, and likely
to increase community divisiveness.
• Additional ATP Recommendations: Improve high-injury intersections with
cameras, evaluate adaptive right-turn-on-red technology, conduct baseline bike
counts, and partner with multiple providers for routine bike education.
On November 4, 2025, the City Council provided the following feedback to staff through
the following motion, during which Vice Mayor Moore made a friendly amendment to
add grant funding (Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wang accepted the friendly
amendment).
• Drop “Public Input” from ranking criteria since it’s not objective and unreliable.
• Remove Fairness as a ranking criterion, as the CIP adoption process will address
that.
• Add “Cost-efficiency (user impact)” to ranking criteria - low cost, high impact
projects should have high priority; and grant funding.
• Add impact to vehicular traffic to arterial streets as a ranking criterion to subtract
points.
• Add and prioritize technology solutions such as sensor-driven pedestrian and
bicyclist detection
o Safe driving technology – speed feedback signs, red light cameras
• Need input from drivers on dangerous points.
• School crossing - needs traffic management too, in addition to bike and ped
infrastructure.
• Need data:
o Longer trip data from cell phone data, in addition to short trip data
o Project list generated
o Data for De Anza Buffered Bike Lane collected so far.
o Hopper data
o TDM data from Apple
Staff addressed the comments specifically related to the draft prioritization criteria by:
• Modifying the scoring for the HIN and High Injury Intersections (HII) to give
greater consideration to projects along the HIN/HII or locations in close
proximity.
• Modifying School Proximity scoring so that Suggested Routes to School is the
chosen metric, rather than a distance-based proximity score for schools. This is
more precise and appropriate, as it specifically addresses safety on known
walking and biking routes to school.
• Adding senior facilities to the Destinations proximity for scoring.
• Creating a new project category for transportation technology.
• Removing the Fairness criterion so that all metrics are based on objective data.
• Adding additional negative scoring for projects that impact Cupertino arterials.
• Adding cost effectiveness as a scoring criterion.
142
The revised criteria tables are included in Attachment 2, and the draft scored project list
is presented in Attachment 3. These prioritization results have not yet undergone
QA/QC with the City of Cupertino and are intended as draft results to inform discussion
with the Planning Commission.
Staff addressed general comments on the ATP by creating a new project category for
technology, developing two policies to apply to the new ATP network recommendations
during project delivery, and making minor revisions to the program and policy
recommendations (Attachment 4). These changes include:
• The creation of a new project category for transportation technology, so that
technology solutions are grouped into corridors and equally ranked against
traditional network recommendations, not just listed as policy and program
recommendations. This new project category is titled Transportation Technology
Corridors.
• A Project Impact Assessment Memo, which lays out the approach for
comprehensively assessing project impacts and a path for project delivery when
the full extent of parking or roadway impacts is discovered during design.
• A Project Effectiveness Memo, which describes how the City can better evaluate
long-term project effectiveness.
• Minor edits to the program and policy recommendations to better reflect the
character of Cupertino and address comments received during public hearings.
The first major revision to the ATP following the last Planning Commission review in
September was the addition of a new project category, Transportation Technology
Corridors. This new category addresses the community’s desire and the Council's
direction to prioritize technology.
To achieve this, transportation technologies were added to the ATP network
recommendations as standalone corridor projects rather than as programmatic elements
as previously identified. Staff began by reviewing Typology C intersection
recommendations (intersection signal and control changes) located at Cupertino-owned
signalized intersections and evaluated their overlap with the Vision Zero HIN.
Following this exercise, staff analyzed collision data to identify corridors with higher
collision rates where “unsafe speed” is listed as the primary collision factor, or where
collisions occurred due to traffic signal or sign violations. Lastly, corridors and the
intersections along them were screened for implementation feasibility to determine
appropriate Technology Corridors. This process helped staff select five corridors that
would benefit most from transportation technologies, based on collision history and the
City’s ability to control and implement different technologies. These corridors are:
• De Anza Blvd: From Homestead Rd to Prospect Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd: From Foothill Blvd to Wolfe Rd
143
• Homestead Rd: From De Anza Blvd to Tantau Ave
• Wolfe/ Miller Rd: From Homestead Rd to Calle de Barcelona
• Stelling Rd: From I-280 to Rainbow Dr
Technology solutions in this project category could include red-light cameras, speed-
enforcement cameras (when legally permissible), adaptive detection for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists, and audible pedestrian detection. Transportation Technology
Corridor projects will be treated the same as traditional network recommendations, and
their scores will be normalized against bicycle, pedestrian intersection, and sidewalk
projects. Technology Corridors will be ranked in the final project list alongside all other
project types.
The next notable change is the addition of two new policy documents to be presented to
Council for consideration. These documents aim to address two commonly heard
themes from the community, Commissions, and Council related to the need to better
consider project tradeoffs before construction and to collect more data on ridership
resulting from bicycle improvement projects. These two memos (Attachments 5 and 6)
describe the approach that staff will follow for new ATP network recommendations.
For evaluating project impacts, the Project Impact Evaluation Memo (Attachment 5)
states that following the Council-approved initiation of any new ATP project, and when
parking or traffic impacts are identified during the preliminary engineering (30%
design) phase, staff will return to the City Council to present the 30% design, identified
impacts, and potential trade-offs. At that meeting, the Council will determine whether
the project should undergo a detailed impact analysis tailored to its specific impacts.
This level of analysis requires a degree of design detail that is available only once the
30% design phase has been completed.
A 30% level of design is necessary to evaluate traffic and parking impacts with technical
accuracy because traffic analysis tools, such as Synchro, TransCAD, Cube, or Inrix-based
models, require defined lane assignments, turn pockets, signal phasing, parking layouts,
and other project features to produce meaningful estimates of delay, queues, diversion
patterns, and parking utilization. Additionally, tying the analysis to the identification of
parking or traffic impacts at 30% ensures that funding is focused on projects that clearly
reveal meaningful operational or parking impacts, rather than expending significant
resources on every concept in the ATP, regardless of its risk profile. A description of the
potential scope and cost estimates for that work is included in Attachment 5.
The second policy memo (Attachment 6) describes the process by which the City will
use data to measure the success of new network recommendations in the ATP. This
approach exclusively applies to Class II (striped bicycle lane), Class IIB (buffered bicycle
lane), and Class IV (protected bicycle lane) bicycle facilities. The goal of this approach is
to ensure that transportation projects identified in the ATP and completed through the
144
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are successful in furthering the City’s stated
goals.
The ATP supports two City policy priorities. These are traffic safety (Vision Zero Action
Plan) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Action Plan). The City’s Vision
Zero Action Plan calls for eliminating serious and fatal collisions by 2040, and the
Climate Action Plan seeks to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions in part
by shifting short driving trips to walking, biking, and transit.
To demonstrate progress toward these goals, staff must track the number of people
using new facilities and the safety of those facilities over time. This proposed evaluation
approach will allow the City to answer basic but important questions, such as whether
these projects encourage the use of active transportation modes, whether collision rates
are decreasing even as ridership increases, and, potentially, which types of
improvements deliver the greatest benefits.
Historically, due to the costly nature of this work, city staff has relied on occasional spot
counts or project-specific traffic studies, which provide only short snapshots of bicycle
and pedestrian volumes. To fully measure the effect of new ATP projects, staff proposes
establishing an approach that combines a one-time citywide baseline count effort along
with project-specific before-and-after counts for certain bikeway projects. This effort will
require the purchase or lease of bike-ped counting equipment and, potentially, the
associated analytics software, so bicycle and pedestrian activity can be measured in a
repeatable way.
Staff recommends that the first action of the ATP should be to conduct a comprehensive
snapshot baseline bicycle and pedestrian count at ATP priority project locations. This
initial effort would record how many people are currently biking (and walking, where
feasible). Following completion of the baseline count, for individual bikeway projects
approved by the Council, staff proposes a before-and-after evaluation approach for
Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bikeways.
Upon Council approval of project initiation, staff would begin a pre-construction data
collection period at the project site. This establishes a clear pre-project picture of both
ridership and safety. After the project is constructed, staff would then repeat this process
for post-construction. With these two datasets, staff can calculate changes in average
daily and peak-period bicycle volumes, as well as changes in collision rates. The key
metric will not just be the number of collisions, but collisions relative to the number of
bicyclists or pedestrians. A successful project would be one in which more people use
the facility while the collision rate per bicyclist or pedestrian remains the same or
decreases. This will be referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which
aligns with Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan objectives.
145
These new policies are intended to improve transparency and accountability around
new active transportation projects. It also provides Council with a way to compare
projects and project types, allows designs to be refined based on what works best in
practice, and creates a feedback loop between adopted policy goals and real-world
outcomes. By committing to these approaches, the City can signal that success is defined
not only by miles of bikeway delivered, but by thoughtful design and quantifiable
improvements in safety and mode shift toward sustainable transportation.
Next steps for the ATP will include presenting this information to the City Council for
review in February, followed by preparing a draft report for public review in the spring.
After the public review period, staff will incorporate any needed revisions and bring the
Draft Plan to the City Council for adoption in late June or early July.
Sustainability Impact
The Cupertino ATP will have positive sustainability impacts because the Plan will
develop infrastructure improvement recommendations that increase safety and
accessibility for all non-motorized roadway users. Additionally, the ATP will include
mode shift strategies to promote walking and bicycling to reduce personal automobile
dependency, which will reduce local greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.
Overall, the ATP will help create a healthier, more sustainable community. The
development and implementation of an Active Transportation Plan is a Transportation
Measure (TR-1) in the City of Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (2022).
• Measure TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve
15 percent of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent by 2040
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The project is not subject to CEQA.
Fiscal Impact
The project is fully funded through the City's TDA3 direct allocation.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Attachments:
1 – September 09, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report
2 – Revised Project Prioritization Criteria
3 – Draft Prioritization Results
4 – Revised Program and Policy Recommendations
5 – Draft Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines
6 – Draft Project Effectiveness Guidelines
146
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 9, 2025
Subject
An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary
of Phase 1 activities and an overview of what to expect during Phase 2.
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide
feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria
Discussion
With substantial progress already made on the implementation of recommended
projects from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, a new, comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was
necessary to build on those improvements and address evolving community needs. Staff
also recognized the importance of creating a unified, citywide plan to align bicycle and
pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs of motorized vehicles. This
coordinated approach ensures consistency across policies and projects, avoiding
duplication, aligning initiatives, and addressing overlapping concerns.
On April 4, 2023, the City Council approved the FY 23/24 City Work Program (CWP),
which identified the ATP as an item “to be considered” for inclusion in the following
year’s work program. The City Council approved the FY 24/25 CWP on April 3, 2024,
with the ATP included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation
Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to support the
development of the Plan. With funding secured, staff advertised a Request for Proposals
for consultant services to assist in developing the Plan. On December 3, 2024, the City
Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to Alta Planning + Design,
Inc., for development of the Active Transportation Plan.
Phase 1 of the Plan occurred between March and June 2025. It included policy review,
community outreach and input, and analysis to develop data-driven project
recommendations.
147
The first step of Phase 1 was developing a Plan Review Memo to ensure the ATP is
consistent with and supports local and regional policies, including Cupertino plans like
the General Plan’s Mobility Element and Vision Zero Action Plan, the Countywide
Active Transportation Plan, and other relevant documents.
Building on that policy context, the project team then conducted a Needs Assessment,
supported by an Existing Conditions Review. These documents examined the City’s
transportation network in detail, identifying where walkers and bikers feel stressed or
disconnected. Analyses such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress were
applied to estimate how many short driving trips could realistically shift to walking or
biking. Together, these data-driven methods established a clear picture of where gaps
are greatest and where investments could have a significant community impact.
In parallel with the analysis work, staff reached out to the community to learn what
destinations they want to travel to and what barriers prevent them from walking or
biking. Between March and June 2025, the City held 12 outreach events, engaged with
more than 1,300 residents and gathered close to 3,000 individual comments. Residents
expressed consistent concerns about safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network, the
need for improved connectivity between neighborhoods and schools, the need to
consider the potential project impacts to drivers, and the importance of designing
facilities that are for people of all ages and abilities. Feedback from the community
helped validate the technical analysis, and together these two sources informed project
recommendations. All the outreach performed in Phase 1 is summarized in the Public
Participation Memo, which is available on the City’s webpage at
www.cupertino.gov/atp.
Phase 1 also resulted in a Vision, Goals, and Objectives Memo. This document captured
the shared vision that Cupertino should be a community where walking, biking, and
rolling are easy, safe, and comfortable for everyone. The ATP’s vision, goals, and
objectives were developed by consolidating similar and overlapping statements from
existing Cupertino plans and then refined using the input gathered during Phase 1
outreach to also reflect today's community needs and concerns. The community ranked
these goals in order of importance, as shown below:
1. Safety: Consistent with the Vision Zero Action Plan, pursue an active
transportation network that reduces the number of serious and fatal crashes
involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active transportation users to zero.
Enact measures to anticipate human error and minimize the impact of traffic
crashes for all roadway users.
2. Accessibility: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that
offers comfortable and convenient walking and biking options to key
destinations for all residents and visitors in the City.
148
3. Maintenance: Active transportation needs should be considered and integrated
in all City roadway maintenance activities.
4. Sustainability: Advance environmental quality and economic prosperity for the
City by providing inviting active transportation facilities that encourage frequent
usage and improve adoption of all non-vehicle modes of travel, resulting in a
reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(GHGs).
5. Multimodal Balance: Consider multimodal priorities and impacts of all projects
to improve sustainable transportation options throughout the City. Limit impacts
to all other modes whenever possible, including transit and personal vehicles.
6. Fairness: Provide a multimodal transportation system that is equally distributed
across all neighborhoods in Cupertino.
In alignment with the Plan goals, draft project prioritization criteria were developed to
assist in ranking the projects identified in the Plan. This ranking will occur following
Phase 2 public outreach once the public has evaluated and commented on the
recommended projects. The criteria were selected to align with community goals
and VTA Measure B funding requirements. These criteria are being presented to the
Commissions and Council for review and public comment. The draft project
prioritization criteria include the following metrics to rank recommended projects:
Collision History
Stress Level
School Proximity
High Frequency Transit Proximity
Parks & Other Destination Proximity
Active Trip Potential
Roadway Impact
Public Input
As Cupertino transitions into Phase 2 of the project, public engagement will continue
throughout this stage, with opportunities for residents to review and comment on the
draft project recommendations. The outcome will be a comprehensive, actionable Active
Transportation Plan that the City Council can consider for adoption by spring 2026. All
Phase 1 deliverables and Phase 2 outreach information can be found on the City’s project
webpage.
Sustainability Impact
The Cupertino ATP will have positive sustainability impacts because the Plan will
develop infrastructure improvement recommendations that increase safety and
accessibility for all non-motorized roadway users. Additionally, the ATP will include
mode shift strategies to promote walking and bicycling to reduce personal automobile
149
dependency, which will reduce local greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.
Overall, the ATP will help create a healthier, more sustainable community.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The project is not subject to CEQA.
Fiscal Impact
The project is fully funded through the City's TDA3 direct allocation.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosely, Director of Public Works
Attachments:
1 – Draft Prioritization Criteria
150
City of Cupertino | 1
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: December 10, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Project Prioritization Criteria
Introduction
Proposed improvements will prioritize the development of a complete active transportation network that imposes fair
outcomes, safety, access, and comfort for people of all ages and abilities. Draft criteria were originally proposed in the
Summer of 2025, with criteria screened with the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning Commission, and City
Council in the Fall of 2025 for their input. Following input from these bodies, prioritization criteria were updated to
better reflect feedback.
Criteria for prioritization have been aligned with the Goals of the Active Transportation Plan:
-Safety
-Access
-Sustainability
-Multimodal Balance
-Cost Effectiveness
Projects will be scored according to their corresponding tables below, then scores will be normalized to create a unified
set of scores for a single project list.
100 1x
100
80 1.25x
80 1.25x
90 1.11x
151
City of Cupertino | 2
Table 1: Bicycle Network Project Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of
Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 10 pts if within 1000 ft 20
30
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of stress analysis 10 pts: BLTS 4
5 pts: BLTS 3 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20
30
High Frequency
Transit Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
5
Parks & Other
Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping
centers along the roadway
destinations within 0.5 mile per
mile of project length. 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle trip potential or high e-bike trip
potential ATP score 5
10
SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area 5
Balance
General Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal based upon
aerial imagery reduction is needed to implement
project
0 pts if needed to implement
project
10
20
Arterial Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal based upon
aerial imagery 10
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 5 pts if $500k - $2M 10 10
152
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
Table 2: Pedestrian Intersection Project Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of
Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 10 pts if within 1000 ft 20
30
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian level of stress analysis 10 pts: PLTS 4
5 pts: PLTS 3 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20
30
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5
Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping
centers along the roadway
destinations within 0.5 mile 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active pedestrian trip potential 5
10
SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 5 pts if $500k - $2M 10 10
153
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Table 3: Pedestrian Sidewalk Projects Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of Cupertino
Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 10 pts if within 1000 ft 20
30
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian and bicycle level of stress analysis 5 pts: PLTS 3 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20
30
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5
Parks & Other
Destination Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping
centers along the roadway destinations within 0.5 mile. 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active trip potential 5
10
SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 5 pts if $500k - $2M 10 10
154
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 5
Table 4: Transportation Technology Corridors Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal
Max
Score
Safety
Collision History The corridor includes an intersection identified as a
VZAP High Injury Network Intersection 2 pts: if 7-24 10
40
Collision History # of collisions with a cause of "unsafe speed" per mile
(according to Cupertino Vision Zero Dashboard Data) corridor (last 5 yrs) by # of collisions with a cause of “unsafe 10
Collision History
# of collisions with a cause of "traffic signals and signs"
per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero
Dashboard Data)
corridor (last 5 yrs) by # of collisions with a cause of “traffic
signals and signs”. 10
Level of Traffic
Stress Average PLTS for the corridor 5 pts: PLTS 3 10
Access
School Proximity % of corridor length on Suggested Route to School 10 pts: 25–75%
0 pts: <25% 20
30 Parks & Other
Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities
and shopping centers along the corridor
per mile of project length.
10
Sustainability Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike short-trip share intersecting
the corridor 10 20
SAST Gap Score % of corridor length within high SAST gap-score areas 10
155
Pedestrian Bicycle
Shared Use Technology
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total
1 Pedestrian A Intersection De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 30 25 6 0 10 1.25 90
2 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 30 27 5 0 10 1.25 89
3 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 25 28 7 0 10 1.25 88
4 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 30 20 6 0 10 1.25 83
5 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 20 25 6 20 10 1 81
6 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 25 20 5 20 10 1 80
7 Shared Use Trail Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett Bridge 30 25 5 20 0 1 80
Neighborhood Route Pepper Tree Ln Stelling Rd Bonny Dr 25 26 8 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Bonny Dr Pepper Tree Ln McClellan Rd 20 27 7 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Terry Way Rodrigues Ave Shelly Dr 10 25 7 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Rodrigues Ave De Anza Blvd Terry Way 10 24 7 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Shelly Dr Terry Way Bonny Dr 10 23 7 20 10 1
9 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 20 25 5 0 10 1.25 75
10 Pedestrian A Intersection Miller Ave Phil Ln 25 23 2 0 10 1.25 75
11 Pedestrian C Intersection Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona 25 23 2 0 10 1.25 75
12 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd 25 24 1 0 10 1.25 75
13 Shared Use Trail UPRR Prospect Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 30 22 2 20 0 1 74
14 Pedestrian A, B Intersection McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln 25 24 0 0 10 1.25 74
15 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Blaney Ave 25 24 5 0 5 1.25 74
16 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr 20 26 3 0 10 1.25 74
17 Bicycle Bike Lane Mariani Ave Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 25 23 6 10 10 1 73
18 Shared Use Crossing McClellan Rd Undercrossing Linda Vista Trail Stevens Creek Trail 20 23 0 20 10 1 73
19 Bicycle Separated Bikeway Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 30 20 7 10 5 1 72
20 Shared Use Trail Varian Park Path Varian Way Amelia Ct 20 21 1 20 10 1 72
21 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Gardena Dr 20 24 3 0 10 1.25 71
22 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Miller Ave/Wolfe Rd 32 20 12 0 0 1.11 71
23 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Columbus Ave 25 21 1 0 10 1.25 71
24 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Vista Dr Stevens Creek Blvd Forest Ave 10 23 8 20 10 1 71
25 Pedestrian A Intersection September Dr McClellan Rd 20 21 4 0 10 1.25 70
26 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) McClellan Rd Byrne Ave Orange Ave 25 23 2 0 5 1.25 69
27 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Stelling Rd 15 28 7 0 5 1.25 69
28 Pedestrian A Intersection Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr 20 22 3 0 10 1.25 69
29 Shared Use Trail Lawrence Mitty Trail Stevens Creek Blvd Barnhart Ave 30 10 8 20 0 1 68
30 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) S Tantau Ave Anne Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 25 21 4 0 5 1.25 68
31 Shared Use Crossing Carmen Rd Bridge Carmen Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 25 22 1 20 0 1 68
32 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Tantau Ave Judy Ave 25 21 4 0 5 1.25 68
33 Pedestrian A Intersection Torre Ave Pacifica Dr 15 25 5 0 10 1.25 68
34 Pedestrian A Intersection Portal Ave Merritt Dr 20 22 3 0 10 1.25 68
Neighborhood Route Phil Ln Finch Ave Stendhal Ln 15 25 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Hyde Ave Shadygrove Dr Bollinger Rd 15 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Stendhal Ln Shadygrove Dr Phil Ln 15 20 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave Stendhal Ln 10 20 3 20 10 1
77
Bicycle
Bicycle
68
8
35
DRAFT PRIORITIZATION RESULTS - PROJECT LIST
These prioritization results have not yet undergone complete QA/QC with the City of Cupertino and are intended as draft results
to inform discussion with the Planning Commission.
For Bicycle projects with multiple segments, scores were averaged. Each segment score was scaled to its length within the
overall project (e.g., a segment 33% of the length of a project makes up 33% of its total score). They are bracketed top and
bottom in the spreadsheet for easier viewing.
Because each project type (bicycle network recommendations, pedestrian sidewalk recommendations, pedestrian intersection
recommendations, and transportation technology corridor recommendations) used different criteria, all projects were
normalized to a 1-100 scale.
Projects are grouped by type to show which scoring criteria were applied. Shared-use paths were scored using the bicycle
criteria in response to repeated community requests to provide an all-ages-and-abilities design and strengthen off-street route
options.
Scores have been rounded to the nearest whole number and, as such, may not add up to the final score.
Project Type Legend
Criteria ScoringProject LocationDraf
t
156
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total
Criteria ScoringProject Location
36 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 20 23 6 0 5 1.25 68
37 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Calvert Dr Loree Ave 20 20 3 0 10 1.25 67
38 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr Lavina Ct 20 25 3 0 5 1.25 67
39 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr Stelling Rd Glencoe Dr 20 24 3 0 5 1.25 66
40 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr 360' East of Stelling Rd 520' West of Beardon Dr 20 24 3 0 5 1.25 66
41 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Bandley Dr Valley Green Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 25 5 6 20 10 1 66
Buffered Bike Lane N Stelling Rd Garden Gate Dr Gardena Dr 25 25 6 10 5 1
Separated Bikeway N Stelling Rd Homestead Rd Gardena Dr 25 5 5 10 10 1
Neighborhood Route September Dr McClellan Rd Festival Dr 20 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Orograde Pl Stelling Rd Festival Dr 15 22 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Festival Dr Stelling Rd Festival Dr Dead End 10 21 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Festival Dr September Dr Festival Dr Dead End 0 20 3 20 10 1
44 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr Ann Arbor Ave Flora Vista Ave 20 25 2 0 5 1.25 65
Separated Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd Denza Blvd Hwy 85 30 28 9 0 0 1
Separated Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd Hwy 85 Foothill Blvd 30 28 4 0 0 1
46 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Bubb Rd Edward Way Vai Ave 25 21 1 0 5 1.25 64
Neighborhood Route Portal Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Wintergreen Dr 15 21 5 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Prince Ave Blaney Ave Portal Ave 20 1 5 20 10 1
Buffered Bike Lane N Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Beekman Pl 25 20 4 10 5 1
Separated Bikeway N Blaney Ave Homestead Rd Beekman Pl 25 20 4 10 10 1
49 Pedestrian A Intersection Terry Way Rodrigues Ave 10 26 5 0 10 1.25 63
50 Pedestrian A Intersection Bonny Dr Sola St 10 26 5 0 10 1.25 63
51 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Scofield Dr Western Dr De Anza Blvd 30 9 7 0 5 1.25 63
52 Pedestrian A Intersection Stendhal Ln Phil Ln 15 23 3 0 10 1.25 63
Neighborhood Route Janice Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Carmen Rd 15 21 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route San Fernando Ave Orange Ave Blackberry Farm 10 21 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Carmen Rd - Scenic Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Scenic Cir Pathway 10 20 1 20 10 1
54 Pedestrian A Intersection Forest Ave Randy Ln 10 24 6 0 10 1.25 63
Neighborhood Route Fort Baker Dr Hyannisport Dr Presidio Dr 10 21 2 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd Hyannisport Dr 10 21 2 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr Bubb Rd 10 20 2 20 10 1
56 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd 30 9 6 0 5 1.25 62
Trail Memorial Park Path Memorial Park Alves St 20 7 10 20 5 1
Trail Memorial Park Path Christensen Dr Mary Ave 20 6 6 20 5 1
58 Pedestrian A Intersection Bixby Dr Portal Ave 10 24 5 0 10 1.25 61
59 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Santa Lucia Rd 20 20 1 10 10 1 61
60 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Portal Ave 15 23 5 0 5 1.25 61
61 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Merritt Dr Larry Way 15 21 2 0 10 1.25 60
62 Pedestrian B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Phar Lap Dr 15 23 1 0 10 1.25 60
63 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Torre Ave 10 27 6 0 5 1.25 60
64 Pedestrian C Intersection Stelling Rd Hazelbrook Dr 10 25 3 0 10 1.25 60
65 Pedestrian C Intersection Bubb Rd McClellan Rd 15 21 2 0 10 1.25 60
66 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd 30 3 10 0 5 1.25 60
Neighborhood Route Carmen Rd Cupertino Rd Dead End 10 23 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Starling Dr Foothill Blvd Chace Dr 10 20 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Amelia Ct Varian Park Crescent Rd 10 22 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Cupertino Rd Foothill Blvd Carmen Rd 10 21 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Crescent Rd - Hillcrest Rd Amelia Ct Cupertino rd 10 21 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Chace Dr Starling Dr Hartman Dr 0 21 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Hartman Dr Chace Dr Ainsworth Dr 0 20 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Varian Way Ainsworth Dr Varian Park 0 22 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr Varian Way 0 20 2 20 10 1
68 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 15 6 8 20 10 1 59
69 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Bubb Rd 230' South of Stevens
Creek Blvd 1,200' North of Results Way 30 5 6 0 5 1.25 58
70 Pedestrian B Intersection Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr 10 25 1 0 10 1.25 57
71 Bicycle Bike Lane Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Calle De Barcelona 30 0 7 10 10 1 57
72 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Alves Dr 0 28 7 0 10 1.25 57
73 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd I 280 30 3 2 0 10 1.25 57
74 Pedestrian A Intersection Wheaton Dr Portal Ave 10 23 3 0 10 1.25 57
Neighborhood Route Rose Blossom Dr McClellan Rd Huntridge Ln 10 22 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Huntridge Ln Rose Blossom Dr Stelling Rd 5 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kentwood Ave Tiptoe Ln City Limits (South) 10 0 5 20 10 1
76 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Bubb Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 30 6 4 0 5 1.25 56
77 Pedestrian A Intersection Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 10 24 1 0 10 1.25 56
Neighborhood Route Palm Ave Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 10 20 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Lockwood Dr Voss Ave Stevens Creek Blvd 5 20 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Voss Ave Lockwood Dr Foothill Blvd 0 20 1 20 10 1
79 Pedestrian A Intersection Alderbrook Ln Atherwood Ave 10 23 2 0 10 1.25 56
80 Pedestrian A Intersection Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 10 23 1 0 10 1.25 56
Neighborhood Route Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr Lauretta Dr 10 23 2 20 5 1
Neighborhood Route Alves Dr Anton Way Bandley Dr 15 5 9 20 5 1
Neighborhood Route Ann Arbor Ct Christensen Dr Ann Arbor Ave 0 4 2 20 5 1
82 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Forest Ave Blaney Ave 10 22 3 0 10 1.25 55
Neighborhood Route Wunderlich Dr Barnhart Ave Johnson Ave 10 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr Bollinger Rd 15 0 4 20 10 1
84 Pedestrian C Intersection Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 5 23 6 0 10 1.25 55
85 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Miller Ave Greenwood Dr 25 3 6 0 10 1.25 55
86 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stern Ave Tilson Ave 10 21 3 0 10 1.25 54
87 Pedestrian A Intersection Sterling Ave Barnhart Ave 10 20 3 0 10 1.25 54
88 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Beardon Dr Dunbar Dr Greenleaf Dr 10 25 3 0 5 1.25 54
89 Pedestrian A Intersection Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr 10 21 2 0 10 1.25 54
90 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Wheaton Dr N Portal Ave Carol Lee Dr 20 1 3 20 10 1 54
91 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 30 2 1 0 10 1.25 54
92 Pedestrian A Intersection Randy Ln Merritt Dr 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 54
93 Pedestrian B Intersection Merritt Dr Vista Dr 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 54
Bicycle 65
63
62
56
56
56
59
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle 55
Bicycle
64
63
62
Bicycle
Bicycle
Shared Use
Bicycle 65
Bicycle 65
Bicycle
42
43
45
47
48
53
55
57
Bicycle67
75
78
81
83
Draf
t
157
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total
Criteria ScoringProject Location
94 Shared Use Two-way, off-street Festival Dr Festival Dr Festival Dr 0 21 3 20 10 1 54
95 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave John Dr 5 24 4 0 10 1.25 53
96 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Beardon Dr Fargo Dr Dunbar Dr 10 24 3 0 5 1.25 53
97 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Barnhart Ave Wunderlich Dr 10 20 3 0 10 1.25 53
Neighborhood Route Linda Vista Dr Hyannisport Dr Santa Teresa Dr 10 20 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Santa Teresa Dr Rae Ln Terrace Dr 0 20 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Terrace Dr Santa Teresa Dr Bubb Rd 10 0 1 20 10 1
99 Bicycle Separated Bikeway Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Homestead Rd 10 20 2 10 10 1 52
100 Pedestrian A, C Intersection Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd 10 25 2 0 5 1.25 52
101 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Lockwood Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 52
Buffered Bike Lane N Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 300 ft South of Perimeter Rd 25 20 6 0 5 1
Buffered Bike Lane N Wolfe Rd Homestead Rd Pruneridge Ave 25 0 6 0 5 1
Separated Bikeway N Wolfe Rd Pruneridge Ave 300 ft. South of Perimeter Rd 25 20 3 0 10 1
103 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Palm Ave S Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 15 23 1 0 2 1.25 51
104 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 10 20 5 0 5 1.25 50
105 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Orion Ln 25 1 3 0 10 1.25 50
106 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Kim St 25 1 4 10 10 1 50
107 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Ann Arbor Ave Grenola Dr Hazelbrook Dr 10 24 1 0 5 1.25 49
108 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Forest Ave 260' East of Randy Ln 110' West of Toni Ct 10 21 3 0 5 1.25 49
109 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Richwood Dr Miller Ave 20 3 6 0 10 1.25 49
110 Pedestrian B Intersection Mary ave Lubec St 5 23 1 0 10 1.25 49
111 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Carmen Rd Janice Ave Scenic Blvd 10 23 1 0 5 1.25 49
112 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd Lawrence Expy Westlynn Way 30 0 3 10 5 1 49
113 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bollinger Rd Estates Dr 25 2 2 0 10 1.25 48
114 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd 10 22 2 0 5 1.25 48
115 Pedestrian A Intersection Pacifica Dr Whitney Way 0 25 4 0 10 1.25 48
116 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Huntridge Ln 5 20 3 0 10 1.25 48
117 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Alderbrook Ln Creekside Park Bollinger Rd 15 0 2 20 10 1 48
118 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Silver Oak Ln Camino Vista Dr 10 22 2 0 5 1.25 48
119 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Mary Ave 500' South of Lubec St 160' North of Point Reyes Ter 5 25 3 0 5 1.25 48
120 Pedestrian A Intersection San Fernando Ave Orange Ave 0 24 4 0 10 1.25 48
121 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Stelling Rd I-280 Rainbow Dr 12 26 5 0 0 1.11 47
122 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane S Stelling Rd Prospect Rd Orogrande Pl 25 0 2 10 10 1 47
123 Pedestrian A Intersection Granada Ave Orange Ave 0 23 4 0 10 1.25 47
124 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr Vista Knoll Blvd 10 21 2 0 5 1.25 47
125 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Stevens Creek Blvd 200' East of Lockwood
Dr Prado Vista Dr 10 21 2 0 5 1.25 47
126 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Permanente Rd 15 20 1 0 10 1 46
127 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 65' South of Echo Hill Ct 30 1 1 0 5 1.25 46
128 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Homestead Rd Calle de Barcelona 15 16 10 0 0 1.11 46
129 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Lockwood Dr 160' East of Lockwood Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46
130 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Lebanon Dr 170' East of Lebanon Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46
131 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Stevens Creek Blvd 170' East of Lebanon Dr Lockwood Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46
132 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd California Oak Way 5 20 2 0 10 1.25 46
Neighborhood Route Erin Way Stelling Rd Kirwin Ln 15 1 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kerwin Ln Erin Way Kim St 10 0 4 20 10 1
134 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor De Anza Blvd Homestead Rd Prospect Rd 16 5 20 0 0 1.11 45
135 Pedestrian A Intersection Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr 0 24 2 0 10 1.25 45
136 Pedestrian B Intersection Hyannisport Dr Fort Baker Dr 0 24 2 0 10 1.25 45
137 Pedestrian A Intersection 100' East of Scenic Ct Cir Pathway 0 25 1 0 10 1.25 44
138 Pedestrian B Intersection Hyde Ave Willowgrove Ln 0 21 4 0 10 1.25 44
139 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Hyde Ave 5 21 4 0 5 1.25 44
140 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Catalano Ct Orion Ct 25 1 4 0 5 1.25 44
141 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Saich Way Alves Dr 10 8 7 0 10 1.25 44
142 Pedestrian A Intersection Scenic Blvd Palm Ave 0 24 1 0 10 1.25 43
143 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd 20 5 4 0 5 1.25 43
144 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd 20 5 4 0 5 1.25 43
Buffered Bike Lane Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd De Anza Blvd 15 0 4 10 10 1
Neighborhood Route Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd Bubb Rd 15 0 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Squirewood Way Scotland Dr Stelling Rd 25 0 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Scotland Dr Squirewood Way Kingsbury Pl 10 0 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Jamestown Dr Plum Blossom Dr Prospect Rd 5 0 6 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Gardenside Ln Kingsbury Pl Rainbow Dr 5 0 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Poppy Way Rainbow Dr Plum Bloom Dr 5 0 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Plum Blossom Dr Primrose Way Jamestown Dr 0 1 6 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kingsbury Pl Scotland Dr Gardenside Ln 0 1 4 20 10 1
146 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave Pear Tree Ln 0 21 3 0 10 1.25 42
Neighborhood Route De Foe Dr Kim St Dumas Dr 0 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kim St Bollinger Rd De Foe Dr 5 1 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kim St McClellan Rd Kirwin Ln 0 3 5 20 10 1
148 Pedestrian A Intersection Merriman Rd Voss Ave 0 22 1 0 10 1.25 42
149 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Foothill Blvd 170' South of Voss Ave Palm Ave 5 22 1 0 5 1.25 42
150 Pedestrian A Intersection Johnson Ave Tilson Ave 20 0 3 0 10 1.25 42
151 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stelling Rd Homestead Rd 15 6 7 0 5 1.25 42
152 Pedestrian B Intersection Ainsworth Dr Bahl St 0 22 2 0 10 1.25 42
153 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Orion Ln Stelling Rd Hunterston Pl 25 1 2 0 5 1.25 42
154 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd I 280 20 1 2 0 10 1.25 42
155 Pedestrian A Intersection Alves Dr De Anza Blvd 10 7 6 0 10 1.25 41
156 Pedestrian A Intersection Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr 0 21 2 0 10 1.25 41
157 Pedestrian A Intersection Lockwood Dr Voss Ave 0 21 1 0 10 1.25 41
158 Pedestrian A Intersection Santa Teresa Dr Columbus Ave 0 22 0 0 10 1.25 41
159 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Gardena Dr Stelling Rd Gardena Ct 20 4 7 0 2 1.25 41
43
45
42
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
52
51
Bicycle
98
102
133
145
147
Draf
t
158
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total
Criteria ScoringProject Location
160 Pedestrian C Intersection Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr 20 1 1 0 10 1.25 40
161 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Alves Dr Stelling Rd 680' East of Stelling Rd 10 7 10 0 5 1.25 40
162 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr 0 20 2 0 10 1.25 40
163 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd Tantau Ave 26 10 0 0 0 1.11 40
Neighborhood Route Waterford Dr Stelling Rd Primrose Way 5 0 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Primrose Way Waterford Dr Plum Blossom Dr 0 1 6 20 10 1
165 Pedestrian A Intersection Bollinger Rd Blaney Ave 15 1 4 0 10 1.25 38
166 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave Kinst Ct 20 2 1 0 5 1.25 36
167 Pedestrian A Intersection Lance Dr Bollinger Rd 15 1 2 0 10 1.25 35
168 Pedestrian A Intersection Imperial Ave Olive Ave 10 3 4 0 10 1.25 34
169 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Squirehill Ct Rainbow Dr 20 1 1 0 5 1.25 33
170 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Regnart Rd 15 0 1 0 10 1.25 33
171 Pedestrian A Intersection Kirwin Ln Erin Way 10 1 4 0 10 1.25 32
Buffered Bike Lane Grant Rd Crist Dr Homestead Rd 15 5 4 0 10 1
Buffered Bike Lane Homestead Rd Bernardo Ave Stelling Rd 5 0 1 0 10 1
Separated Bikeway Homestead Rd Grant Rd Bernardo Ave 5 2 1 0 10 1
173 Pedestrian B Intersection Bollinger Rd Miller Ave 10 1 4 0 10 1.25 31
174 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave 10 3 1 0 10 1.25 31
175 Shared Use Two-way, off-street Kim St Kirwin Ln Bollinger Rd 5 1 4 10 10 1 30
176 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Alderbrook Ln Bollinger Rd 15 2 2 0 5 1.25 30
177 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Clifden Way 10 4 4 0 5 1.25 29
178 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Canyon Rd Riverside Dr 10 2 0 0 10 1.25 28
179 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Waterford Dr 10 1 1 0 10 1.25 27
180 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Seven Springs Pkwy 10 1 1 0 10 1.25 27
181 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Rainbow Dr 10 0 6 0 10 1 26
182 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Kirwin Ln Lonna Ln De Anza Blvd 10 3 5 0 2 1.25 25
183 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Kim St Bollinger Rd 5 1 3 0 10 1.25 25
184 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd 170' South of Stevens
Creek Blvd Rancho Ventura St 10 3 2 0 5 1.25 24
185 Pedestrian A, C Intersection De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd 10 0 3 0 5 1.25 23
186 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd Walnut Cir 314' South of Rancho Ventura
St 10 2 1 0 5 1.25 23
187 Pedestrian A Intersection Kirwin Ln Felton Way 0 4 5 0 10 1.25 23
188 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Martinwood Way Bollinger Rd 0 4 4 0 10 1.25 22
189 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) McClellan Rd 250' East of Stevens
Canyon Rd 90' West of San Leandro Ave 10 2 0 0 5 1.25 21
190 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Orion Ln Derbyshire Dr Hunterston Pl 10 1 1 0 5 1.25 21
191 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Prospect Rd Stelling Rd 10 0 0 0 5 1.25 20
192 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Kim St Kirwin Ln 0 2 3 0 10 1.25 19
193 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Rainbow Dr 5 0 0 0 10 1.25 19
194 Pedestrian A Intersection Dempster Ave Fitzgerald Ave 0 4 1 0 10 1.25 18
195 Pedestrian A Intersection Wildflower Way De Anza Blvd 0 1 3 0 10 1.25 18
196 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Alcalde Rd Merriman Rd Foothill Blvd 5 2 1 0 5 1.25 17
197 Pedestrian A Intersection Dempster Ave Stokes Ave 0 2 1 0 10 1.25 16
198 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Rainbow Dr Gardenside Ln 5 1 1 0 5 1.25 15
199 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Farallone Dr 0 3 4 0 5 1.25 15
200 Pedestrian A Intersection Weymoth Dr Rainbow Dr 0 1 1 0 10 1.25 15
201 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Wildflower Way 0 1 5 0 5 1.25 14
202 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd 0 1 5 0 5 1.25 14
203 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Via Roncole Prospect Rd 0 0 3 0 5 1.25 11
204 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Alcalde Rd Avenida Ln Alicia Ct 0 1 1 0 5 1.25 9
205 Pedestrian A, C Intersection Canyon Oak Way Cristo Rey Dr 0 0 0 0 5 1.25 6
32
39Bicycle164
172 Bicycle
Draf
t
159
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 1
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd and George Foster, Alta Planning + Design
Date: January 1, 2026
Re: Cupertino ATP: Policy and Program Recommendations
This memo provides a summary of new legislation that may impact policy and program recommendations, as
well as a consolidated, updated set of recommended policies and support programs to enhance the existing
walking and rolling networks in the City of Cupertino. Several plans are referenced throughout this
document, but the Active Transportation Plan will be referred to in capital letters as the Plan.
The memo first summarizes Recent Regional, State, and Federal Policies, then presents detailed tables of
Policy and Program Recommendations. Although regional Equity informs all recommendations, these tables
focus on the following key areas of potential policy and programmatic investment: Engineering,
Encouragement, Education, Enforcement, and Evaluation. As an appendix, there is also an overview of
relevant Existing Cupertino Policy Recommendations.
Recent Regional, State, and Federal Policies
The following State-level legislation has been passed in the last five years and will affect the implementation
of this Active Transportation Plan and its accompanying policies and programs.
Roadway Safety Enhancements
Daylighting (AB 413): This law, which took effect in 2024, aims to improve visibility at crosswalks by
prohibiting vehicles from stopping or parking within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or
marked crosswalk or 15 feet of crosswalks with curb extensions.
Speed Safety System Pilot Program (AB 645): This program, established by a bill signed in October 2023,
permits select cities to install speed cameras to deter reckless driving. Cities like San Francisco have already
implemented the program, deploying cameras in high-risk areas. There is potential for Cupertino to
implement speed cameras if this pilot is successful.
Reckless Driving Crackdown (SB 1509): This legislation aims to deter reckless driving, particularly speeding, by
strengthening enforcement and considering the use of technology like speed cameras.
Safer, More Inclusive Street Design (SB 960): This bill enhances the California State Highway System by
requiring Caltrans to incorporate features such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit facilities into its planning
and projects.
Speed Limit Setting (AB 43): Legislation was passed to authorize Caltrans and local authorities to set, retain,
or restore speed limits on highways, including the possibility of a reduction of five mph in some
circumstances.
160
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 2
Infrastructure Funding and Regulation
Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Though not state-specific legislation, California was
expected to receive over $40 billion in federal funds from this bipartisan act, to be invested in various
transportation projects, including roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure. However, many
federally funded active transportation projects are currently facing political obstruction, and their future is
unclear.
CEQA Exemptions for Bicycle and Mass-Transit Projects (SB 288): This bill added statutory California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions for bicycle projects. SB 922 extended and enhanced the CEQA
exemptions for sustainable transportation projects—including bike lanes, pedestrian infrastructure, bus rapid
transit, and light rail—through 2030. This expedites the approval and construction of these climate-friendly
projects by reducing administrative delays and costs, thereby promoting cleaner, safer, and more equitable
transportation options statewide.
161
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 3
Policy and Program Recommendations
This section includes descriptions of existing and proposed policies and programs, organized by
programmatic/policy category: Equity, Engineering, Encouragement, Education, Enforcement, and
Evaluation. These policy and program recommendations align with the goals of the Active Transportation
Plan: Safety, Accessibility, Maintenance, Sustainability, Multimodal Balance, and Fairness. Examples are
provided for many to illustrate implementation.
Equity
The proposed programmatic and policy recommendations outlined in this memo should be prioritized
through a regional equity lens to support efforts to improve the City’s active transportation network. This
should be incorporated into all future policies and programs through early community involvement, targeted
outreach, attending existing community events, hosting events in affected communities, and providing
translation services.
162
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 4
Engineering
Pedestrian and bicycle support facilities provide increased comfort and convenience for individuals who use
active modes to get around. Table 1 summarizes existing and proposed engineering policies and programs in
the City that work in conjunction with existing infrastructure to improve the user experience. Infrastructure
improvements should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit stops, medical centers, senior centers, City
services, commercial areas, and HIN/HII.
Note: Several of the recommended policies and programs in this section are already in place in Cupertino but
have significant potential for codification and expansion.
Table 1 Existing and Recommended Engineering Policies and Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Vision Zero Policy The City adopted a local Vision Zero Action Plan to
better understand local collisions and collaborate
across City Departments to improve safety for walking
and rolling in Cupertino.
Safety Cupertino Vision Zero
Action Plan
Complete Streets
Policy
The City adopted a local Complete Streets policy to
ensure streets are designed to enable safe,
convenient, and comfortable travel for users of all ages
and abilities, regardless of their mode of
transportation.
Accessibility and
Multimodal
Balance
Cupertino Complete Streets
Policy
Online Information
and Service Requests
The City currently operates a telephone, app, and
online service request system (Cupertino311), which
allows residents to submit an issue or request for a
specific service for traffic signals, roadway issues, or
sidewalk obstructions.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Cupertino Maintenance
Services
Wayfinding Wayfinding signage provides important destination,
distance, and navigation information to roadway
users. Specific wayfinding signs designed for people
walking and bicycling can be expanded and improved
at key locations across the City to further support
active transportation.
Accessibility Cupertino Wayfinding
Project
Recommended
Pedestrian-Scale
Lighting
Pedestrian-scale streetlights are designed at a lower
height and intensity to enhance visibility, safety, and
comfort for people walking in urban or public
spaces. By increasing visibility, it improves safety and
crime outcomes. It also enhances the walkability and
aesthetic appeal of public spaces, encouraging more
foot traffic and fostering a sense of community. LED
lights can be used to reduce energy costs, and
shields can be used to minimize night sky pollution
or limit light pollution on adjacent private property.
Safety
Alameda, CA
163
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 5
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Crossing Facility
Improvements
City may improve crossing facilities by implementing
high-visibility crosswalks, advance stop or yield
markings, pedestrian refuge islands, and raised
crosswalks or intersections. These enhancements
would make people walking and rolling more visible
to drivers.
Safety Sacramento, CA
Evaluate Right
Turn on Red
Restrictions
Evaluate intersections to limit vehicles from turning
right at a red-light signal on a case-by-case basis, when
traffic operations analysis indicates that the restriction
can be implemented without creating unacceptable
vehicle delay.
Safety Ann Arbor, Michigan
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
The City may consider LPIs at signalized
intersections, with a plan moving forward to update
key intersections.
Safety CA AB 2264 (2022)
Active Detection at
Intersections for
People Walking and
Rolling
Develop an inventory of signalized intersections
without active detection for people walking and
rolling and create a way forward for standardization
and inclusion at signal heads. Establish a
standardized approach for integrating reliable
detection technologies—such as passive infrared,
video, or radar sensors—ensuring they are
accurately placed along built and desired routes.
Define clear specifications for detector performance,
placement, and integration with signal systems, and
incorporate upgrades into signal maintenance,
capital projects, and retiming efforts. Include staff
training, contractor guidance, and periodic
evaluation to ensure effective and consistent
deployment citywide.
Safety and
Accessibility
Santa Clara County, CA
Active Detection White
Paper
Curb Extensions at
Intersections
Consider additional curb extensions at school-zone
intersections and mid-block crossings to reduce
vehicle speeds and improve overall transportation
safety.
Safety San Francisco, CA
Sidewalk and Curb
Cut Improvement
Program
The City may develop a sidewalk and curb cut
improvement program with a dedicated funding
stream to close sidewalk gaps and add curb ramps at
key locations. This program would allow the City to
be more responsive to local citizen complaints for
sidewalk and curb cut enhancements.
Safety, Fairness,
and
Maintenance
Palo Alto, CA
164
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 6
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
End-of-Trip Facilities End-of-trip facilities such as bike parking, water
stations, kiosks, and fix-it stations help encourage
people to bike more by providing the amenities they
need at the end of their trip. These facilities are
typically most suitable in City right-of-way areas
with high concentrations of walking and rolling, such
as the Cupertino Library.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
Los Angeles, CA
Lower Speed Limits Create a program to analyze and reduce speeds
where appropriate along arterial and collector
roadways based on the CA Manual for Setting Speed
Limits. Lowering the speed limits on streets may
lessen the severity and frequency of crashes.
Safety Santa Monica, CA
Lower School Zone
Speed Limits
Per California Vehicle Code Section 22358.8, the City
may consider reducing speed limits around School
Zones, which may be lowered to 15 mph on all two-
way residential streets within 500 feet of schools,
and 25 mph up to 1,000 feet from schools.
Safety and
Accessibility
Oakland, CA
Quick Build Project
Implementation
Quick Build projects typically include less expensive
materials such as paint, thermoplastic, and
bollards/delineators (or other sturdy but removable
materials). These improvements share many of the
same safety benefits as their permanent
counterparts, but can be implemented more quickly
and cost-effectively, allowing the City to be
responsive to safety concerns while still planning for
long-term funding and implementation. The City
should consider implementing Quick Build projects
identified in completed school walk audits, in
addition to other priority areas.
Safety and
Maintenance
CalBike Design Guide
Quick Build White Paper
Expand the City Tree
Canopy
Consider planting shade trees and other greening
elements along corridors where people may be
walking and rolling, and within school zones.
Caltrans considers street trees to be traffic-calming
elements as they are often attributed to a perceived
narrowing of the roadway, a sense of rhythm and
human scale created by framing the street, and the
perception that the driver is in a place where they
are more likely to encounter people walking or
rolling and cross-traffic.
Sustainability
and Fairness
San José, CA
165
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 7
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Update Street Design
Standards
Review and update all relevant policy and design
standards regarding bikeway facilities, path and
sidewalk design, materials, and supporting amenities
to be consistent with the most recent best practices
and state and federal standards for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and in compliance with the latest
ADA Standards for Accessible Design and Public
Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).
Accessibility,
Maintenance,
and Multimodal
Balance
Sacramento, CA
Maintenance
Program
Maintenance is deeply tied to the usability and
lifespan of these engineering recommendations.
Cupertino can develop more detailed protocols for
regular street sweeping and debris removal on
bikeways—particularly Class IV protected lanes and
Class I multi-use paths—to maintain comfort and
reduce risks. Expanded, detailed vegetation
management can address overgrowth that obstructs
visibility at intersections, encroaches onto sidewalks
and paths, and blocks signage. The 311 reporting
system for issues like potholes, flooding, or
obstructions should be widely promoted and
integrated into existing municipal apps and customer
service portals. Maintenance guidelines should
specifically account for newer infrastructure types,
such as roundabouts, green paint treatments, and
modular curbs or delineators, to ensure that
materials are durable and repairable. Coordination
between construction, maintenance, and repaving
schedules is a proven strategy to reduce disruptions
and extend pavement life, and Cupertino can adopt a
“dig-once” approach to align upgrades with
resurfacing or utility work. Regular inspections,
performance audits, and a publicly accessible
maintenance log can help ensure transparency,
accountability, and timely repairs.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Sacramento, CA
166
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 8
Encouragement
Encouragement programs help to create a lasting active transportation culture and can encourage overall
mode share shifts. Table 2 provides an overview of existing and recommended walking and rolling
encouragement programs.
Table 2 Existing and Recommended Encouragement Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
The City should continue the existing Safe Routes to
School Program and place greater emphasis on
working with school districts to address on-site
circulation and spillover traffic.
Safety,
Accessibility, and
Fairness
Cupertino SR2S Program
Bike to Work/
Wherever Days
The City can continue to sponsor Bike to Work/
Wherever Day events in support of regional efforts.
Accessibility Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition BTWD
Adopt-a-Trail
Program
The existing Santa Clara County program provides
individuals, groups, businesses, and clubs the
opportunity to adopt a section of trail on an annual
basis. Each sponsor supports their Adopted Trail with
financial contributions and volunteer trail work.
Maintenance Santa Clara County
Adopt-a-Trail
Recommended
Open Streets Open Street events promote and celebrate bicycling
and walking and encourage participation from
neighborhoods.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
CicLAvia
Social Walks/Rides Support City departments and local organizations in
hosting social rides or walks, like Bike for Boba.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
San José, CA
Walking School
Buses and Bike
Trains [SR2S]
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains are organized
groups of students walking/biking to school under the
supervision of a guardian, teacher, or adult volunteer.
These groups follow predetermined routes and can
operate on an occasional or daily basis, depending on
the interest from families.
Accessibility and
Fairness
Alameda County, CA
Portland, OR
167
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 9
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Bike Parking
Inventory
Map existing racks in the City and upload them to the
open data portal. Develop and publish a public-facing
guide that outlines various types of secure
micromobility parking infrastructure, such as bike
corrals, covered racks, and lockers (like Oonee Pods).
The guide should explain the ideal use cases for each
option, based on factors such as location (e.g., transit
hubs, business districts), user needs (e.g., long-term
vs. short-term parking), and security levels. Including
photos, technical specifications, and maintenance
considerations will help the City, businesses, and
community organizations make informed decisions
about selecting and installing the right facilities.
Accessibility,
Maintenance,
and Fairness
APBP Essentials of Bike
Parking
Bike Rack
Program
Consider establishing a Bike Rack Installation Program
to provide secure, convenient bicycle parking that
supports everyday bicycling and reduces parking
barriers.
Accessibility
Petaluma, CA
Bicycle Parking
at Large Events
Revise Cupertino Municipal Code regarding event
permits to include “Conditions for Issuance” to
require events expected to draw more than 5,000
attendees must provide secure, attended bicycle
parking for attendees at no charge.
Accessibility Oakland, CA
Electric
Micromobility
Expansion
Cupertino has an opportunity to lead in sustainable
transportation by developing a forward-thinking
policy that actively encourages the use of electric
micromobility devices—such as personal e-bikes, e-
scooters, and other small electric vehicles—in line
with state and regional standards. These devices
make active transportation more accessible by
extending travel distances, reducing trip times, and
performing well in various weather conditions. This
policy can define appropriate use on bike lanes,
multi-use trails, and low-speed streets, with safe
speed limits that prioritize both comfort and safety.
The City can encourage electric micromobility use
and discourage illegal devices and modifications
through public education, safe riding guidance, and
improved infrastructure, such as secure parking with
charging options.
Accessibility and
Fairness
Palo Alto, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
168
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 10
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Trail Steward
Volunteers
Engage with volunteer organizations to regularly
maintain and address community safety concerns
around vegetation and debris on shared-use paths.
Events can be opportunities for volunteers to help
their community.
Maintenance Richmond, CA
Rails-to-Trails Maintenance
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)
Implementation
Plan
Develop a Transportation Demand Management
Implementation Plan or Report to increase support
for commuters bicycling or walking to work. This may
include identifying additional metrics for businesses
to count active transportation-supportive policies
towards their own TDM plans and goals.
Sustainability
and Multimodal
Balance
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Walk and Roll
Ambassadors
Walk and Roll Ambassadors are trained community
volunteers who promote safe walking and rolling,
especially among students and families. They
engage in outreach, education, and encouragement
activities to foster active transportation and build a
culture of mobility and safety. These roles are
particularly important in communities where English
is not the first language.
Safety and
Accessibility
Bike East Bay
Partner with
Bicycle
Organizations
The formation of strong relationships with local
bicycle advocates and bicycle clubs will encourage
mutually beneficial collaboration and help the City
reach its plan goals. The City is encouraged to
partner with organizations in the area.
Accessibility CalBike List of Local Partners
Partner and
Coordinate
with County
Agencies
Coordinate with representatives from various County
agencies, including County Public Health and VTA, for
project and program implementation.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Santa Clara County, CA
Bicycle Friendly
Business
Program
Similar to the Bicycle Friendly Community
designation, the Bicycle Friendly Business program
recognizes businesses for their efforts to encourage a
more bicycle-friendly atmosphere. This requires
businesses to implement various strategies to cater
to the diverse needs of customers and employees.
The City of Cupertino Civic Center Plaza has Gold
award status.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
League of American
Bicyclists
169
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 11
Education
Walking and rolling education programs help individuals interested in active transportation feel more
comfortable, safe, and confident navigating streets and shared-use paths. Table 3 outlines existing
educational programs in the City as well as potential program expansion.
Table 3 Existing and Recommended Education Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
The existing SR2S Program provides education and
resources for school site administrators, parents, and
children on bicycle safety, pedestrian awareness, and
traffic concerns.
Safety,
Accessibility, and
Fairness
Cupertino SR2S
Walking and
Rolling Safety
Campaign
Create a City-sponsored outreach campaign to
encourage all road users to abide by local laws and be
courteous to other users. This campaign may be
targeted at a single user type (e.g., cyclists) or at
multiple users. Local stakeholders may assist in
developing goals that are rooted in community
concerns and issues. Campaigns should be deployed
at regular intervals throughout the year to promote
an attitude of safety awareness. Safety campaigns
should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit
stops, commercial areas, and at high collision
corridors.
Safety and
Accessibility
Cupertino Vision Zero PSA
Campaign
Bicycle Rodeos
[SR2S]
The City of Cupertino SR2S Program offers bicycle
rodeo programming at Cupertino Unified schools,
providing a blacktop training course on bicycle safety.
Safety Cupertino SR2S
Recommended
“New
Infrastructure”
Education
Campaign
Often, when infrastructure changes occur, there is a
missing education component to the community
about how to interact with the new design or feature.
Education materials and messaging can be developed
during the installation of infrastructure, which the
general public may be unfamiliar with, such as unique
interchanges/roundabouts, two-stage turn boxes, or
advisory shoulders.
Safety and
Multimodal
Balance
UC Davis
170
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 12
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Driver Education
Program
Establish a citywide driver education program that
focuses on improving awareness and promoting safe
interactions with people walking, biking, and rolling,
incorporating best practices from Vision Zero and Safe
Systems approaches. The program could include
modules on recognizing vulnerable road users,
crosswalk laws, yielding at intersections, safely passing
cyclists, and navigating areas with high activity or
limited visibility. The curriculum can be conducted in
partnership with local school districts and SR2S
coordinators. For older adults or existing drivers,
collaborate with the DMV and community centers to
offer targeted refresher workshops. The City can
promote the program through strategic outreach
campaigns—such as during Bike to Everywhere Month
in May—using social media, public service
announcements, and partnerships with local
employers, transit agencies, and neighborhood
associations. Additional outreach tools could include
short educational videos,
translated materials, and interactive online modules.
Safety League of American
Bicyclists
Bicycle Safety
Education for
Adults
Partner with local organizations to provide classes for
adults to learn bicycle safety. Support growth by
advertising and providing meeting space in Cupertino.
Safety and
Accessibility
Sonoma County, CA
Huntington Beach, CA
Electric
Micromobility
Education
With the proliferation of e-bikes and other electric
micromobility devices, people may not understand or
be misinformed about how to use these modes safely
and legally. An education campaign can be targeted at
e-mobility, especially among students who may be
excited about the increased travel opportunities
offered by such devices.
Safety and
Accessibility
California Highway Patrol
171
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 13
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Waste Bin
Placement
Provide clear instructions on the City website and in
utility bills about the proper placement of waste bins.
Where on-street parking exists, bins should be placed
near the curb, within the parking aisle. Residents
should be instructed to place bins against the curb
where no on-street parking exists to minimize
intrusion into the bicycle lane. Collaborate with waste
management companies to add reflective markings to
waste bins to increase their visibility at night and
reduce the risk of bicycle collisions with misplaced
bins. The City could also work with management
companies to stencil “Do Not Place In Bicycle Lane”
on the waste bins to remind residents of proper
placement.
Maintenance
and Multimodal
Balance
Pomona, CA
Mini Main Street
Education Events
[SR2S]
Host Mini Main Street safety education events and
install permanent traffic gardens at select schools. Mini
Main Streets and traffic gardens provide safe
environments for children to practice roadway safety.
Safety Mountain View, CA
172
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 14
Enforcement
Enforcement programs help to institutionalize safe walking and rolling transportation systems. By prioritizing
relationships between law enforcement and individuals who walk and roll, these programs help create a safe
environment for all users. Table 4 below lists the proposed enforcement programs for the City.
Table 4 Recommended Enforcement Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Recommended
Traffic Ticket
Reduction
Help develop a partnership program with the Santa
Clara County Sheriff and a bicycle education provider
to offer bicycle education as a traffic court option.
People who receive a citation/infraction on a bicycle
for California Vehicle Code violations would be
permitted to attend a Basic Street Skills
class to reduce or waive fines.
Safety and Fairness Marin County, CA
Bike Patrol
Program
Partner with the County Sheriff to develop a program
that provides routine patrolling on bicycles. The
program would enable increased community
engagement and promote bicycle safety.
Safety and Fairness El Cerrito, CA
Targeted
Enforcement
Target enforcement of vehicular violations at
locations with a high incidence of red-light running
and HIN/HII.
Safety and Fairness San José, CA
173
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 15
Evaluation
Programs to help evaluate and track progress toward reaching the Plan’s goals are essential for long-term
success and effective project implementation. Table 5 lists proposed programs that help identify what’s
working, what’s not working, and where additional efforts are needed following the completion of the plan.
Table 5 Recommended Evaluation Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Active
Transportation
Online Portal
Update and maintain the GIS portal to display recent
and ongoing active transportation project planning
and status, as well as annual statistics on pedestrian
and bicycle-involved collisions. This portal may also
include links to other active transportation
resources throughout the City.
Safety and
Accessibility
Cupertino Open Data
Portal
Recommended
School Walk Audit
Reports [SR2S]
Update reports with new safety assessments at each
school to identify specific barriers and challenges
faced by students who walk or roll to school and
develop countermeasures to address the identified
deficiencies.
Safety Cupertino SR2S
Annual Walking
and Rolling
Collision Reports
Annual reviews of collisions involving vulnerable
roadway users with the County Sheriff will help the
City assess traffic safety issues and track progress
towards a safer community for people walking and
rolling.
Safety San Francisco, CA
Walking and
Rolling Count
Program
(Manual and
Automated)
Conducting regular walking and rolling counts can
help the City understand how travel behavior is
changing over time. This would include manual and
automated data collection. Manual counts are useful
for capturing nuanced data (age, gender, helmet use,
group sizes) and validating automated counters. This
can be done in collaboration with universities,
advocacy groups, or volunteers to expand manual
count capacity. Automated counters (infrared,
pneumatic tubes, LiDAR, video AI) provide long-term,
high-frequency data and reduce staff time. The use of
automated counting technology, such as in-ground
sensors, infrared counters, or video analytics, can be
integrated into ongoing signal maintenance and street
Maintenance
and Multimodal
Balance
Oakland, CA
NCHRP Report 797
174
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 16
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
improvement projects to minimize installation costs.1
When combined with models that predict where
walking and bicycling would be expected, count data
can also identify locations where people are expected
to travel by these modes but do not, often due to a
lack of infrastructure. Coordinate with regional
planning and transit agencies and adjacent
municipalities to ensure consistency in methodologies
(e.g., same time periods, equipment calibration, and
data formats) and include metadata on count
conditions (e.g., weather, construction, events) for
context.
Walking and
Rolling Count
Program
(Aggregated
Data)
To complement physical counters and enhance
citywide data coverage, the City could purchase or
subscribe to aggregate mobility datasets from
companies like StreetLight Data and Replica, which
provide insights derived from anonymized GPS,
cellular, and location-based services data. These
datasets can provide a broader understanding of
walking and biking patterns, helping to identify
underserved neighborhoods or emerging trends in
travel behavior. Conduct regular validation of
aggregated data against manually collected data.
Safety,
Maintenance,
and Multimodal
Balance
San Francisco, CA
1 For example, the GridSmart SMARTMOUNT Bell Camera may be configured on existing poles at intersections to count people
walking and rolling as they cross, with subscription to an additional software module.
175
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 17
Appendix: Existing Cupertino Policy Recommendations
General Plan Mobility Element
The City of Cupertino General Plan Mobility Element, adopted in 2015 and updated in 2024, outlines goals,
policies, and strategies for transportation network improvements necessary to accommodate Cupertino's
anticipated growth. The Element aims to make alternative modes of transportation attractive choices,
helping to reduce strain on the automobile network and improve the health and quality of life for residents
and businesses.
Regional Coordination
• Regional Transportation Planning: Participate in regional transportation planning processes to develop
programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and to minimize adverse
impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address regional transportation
and land use issues of mutual interest.
• Citywide VMT Reduction: Framework for reducing VMT citywide includes limiting parking supply and
implementing a citywide bikeshare program.
• Regional Trail Development: Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and
pathways consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor, and Ridge
Trail.
Complete Streets
• Street Design: Adopt and maintain street design standards to optimize mobility for all transportation
modes, including automobiles, walking, bicycling, and transit.
• Adjacent Land Use: Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking and bicycle lanes,
crosswalks, and sidewalks to complement adjacent land uses in keeping with the vision of the Planning
Area. Strive to minimize adverse impacts and expand alternative transportation options for all Planning
Areas (Special Areas and Neighborhoods). Improvement standards shall also consider the urban,
suburban, and rural environments found within the City.
• Connectivity: Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between planning
areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster a sense of community.
• Community Impacts: Reduce traffic impacts and support alternative modes of transportation rather than
constructing barriers to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a demonstrated safety or
overwhelming through-traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, since street closures
move the problem from one street to another.
• Traffic Calming: Consider the implementation of best practices on streets to reduce speeds and make
them user-friendly for alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrians and bicyclists.
Walkability and Bikeability
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that
outlines policies and improvements to streets, the extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way
for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings: Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and pathways at key
• locations across physical barriers such as creeks, highways, and road barriers.
• Development: Require new development and redevelopment to increase connectivity through direct and
safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, and shopping and employment
destinations throughout the city.
• Street Widths: Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian and bike connectivity by limiting street
widening purely for automobiles as a means of improving traffic flow.
• Curb Cuts: Minimize the number and width of driveway openings.
176
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 18
• Capital Improvement Program: Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and eliminate
gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle network as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
• Bicycle Parking: Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and private bicycle
parking.
• Outreach: Actively engage the community in promoting walking and bicycling through education,
encouragement, and outreach on improvement projects and programs.
• Spaces for Pedestrians: Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for pedestrians, providing a
safe route to building entrances.
• Proactive Enforcement: Prioritize enforcement of traffic speeds and regulations on all streets with bike
lanes, bike routes, and around schools.
Transit
• Access to Transit Services: Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to
improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.
• Transit Facilities with new development: Work with VTA and/or major developments to ensure all new
development projects include amenities to support public transit, including bus stop shelters, space for
transit vehicles as appropriate, and attractive amenities such as trash receptacles, signage, seating, and
lighting.
• Vallco Shopping District Transfer Station: Work with VTA and/or other transportation service
organizations to study and develop a transit transfer station that incorporates a hub for alternative
transportation services such as car sharing, bike sharing, and/ or other services.
Safe Routes to School
• Safe Routes to School: Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all schools serving the city.
• Prioritize Projects: Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements include projects to enhance
safe accessibility to schools.
• Connections to Trails: Connect schools to the citywide trail system.
• Education: Support education programs that promote safe walking and bicycling to schools.
Transportation Impact Analysis
• Protected Intersections: Consider adopting a Protected Intersection Policy, which would identify
intersections where improvements would not be considered, which would degrade levels of service for
non-vehicular modes of transportation. Potential locations include intersections in Priority Development
Areas (PDAs) and other areas where non-vehicular transportation is a key consideration, such as near
shopping districts, schools, parks, and senior citizen developments.
Roadway System Efficiency
• Street Width: Except as required by environmental review for new developments, limit widening of
streets as a means of improving traffic efficiency and focus instead on operational improvements to
preserve community character.
Transportation Infrastructure
• Transportation Improvement Plan: Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation
improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation
improvements to meet the City’s needs.
• Multimodal Improvements: Integrate the financing, design, and construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities with street projects. Build pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the same time as
improvements for vehicular circulation to enable travelers to transition from one mode of transportation
to another (e.g., bicycle to bus).
177
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 19
Bicycle Transportation Plan
The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan provided a vision and specific steps to create safer and more
comfortable conditions for people to bike in Cupertino. The Plan included the following relevant
recommended policies:
• Policy 1.A.1: Support and expand the City of Cupertino Safe Routes to School program.
• Policy 1.A.2: Partner with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to offer routine adult and family bicycle
education classes in Cupertino.
• Policy 1.B.1: Incorporate messaging in all City media that promotes the benefits of active lifestyles and
raises awareness of walking and bicycling facilities in the community.
• Policy 1.C.1: Partner with tourism and economic development agencies to promote Cupertino as a
destination for active recreation and active lifestyles.
• Policy 1.C.2: Create a Bicycle Friendly Business program to recognize and promote bicycle-friendly
businesses in Cupertino.
• Policy 1.C.3: Collaborate with county and regional partners to create bikeway connections to the local
tourism generators and to promote active recreation in the region.
• Policy 1.D.1: Work with Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Office to review collision locations and ‘close call’
reports and identify locations for increased enforcement of motorist and bicyclist behavior.
• Policy 1.E.1: Review the Bicycle Transportation Plan performance measures at regular intervals to review
progress and update priorities as necessary.
• Policy 1.E.2: Conduct bicycle counts citywide at regular intervals to better understand the profile of
residents bicycling in Cupertino as well as measure the impacts of newly implemented infrastructure and
programs.
• Policy 2.A.1: Annually review the number, locations, and contributing factors of bicycle-related collisions
to identify and implement ongoing improvements at collision locations throughout the transportation
network.
• Policy 2.A.2: Identify opportunities to reduce bicyclist exposure by reducing locations or lengths of conflict
areas with vehicles or by providing dedicated and separated facilities where feasible.
• Policy 2.A.3: Adopt a Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2026.
• Policy 2.A.4: Study the need for 15 mph School Zone speed limits and adopt in appropriate locations by
2020.
• Policy 2.A.5: Develop a City policy for the regular documentation of bike facility quality and maintenance
of bicycle facilities throughout the City.
• Policy 3.A.1: Implement the recommendations from this Bicycle Transportation Plan Update.
• Policy 3.A.2: Integrate bicycle facilities as part of the design and construction of upgrades or resurfacing of
all existing roadways.
• Policy 3.B.1: Create a low-stress network in parallel to the arterial bikeway network, providing an
alternative that is appealing to residents of all ages and abilities.
• Policy 3.B.2: Upgrade and improve the existing arterial bikeway network to increase bicyclist comfort and
lower barriers for more risk-averse users.
• Policy 3.B.3: Develop a citywide wayfinding system, providing access to appropriate locations such as
employment centers, schools, and commercial centers.
• Policy 3.B.4: Prioritize the installation of bicycle parking in the public right-of-way at key commercial and
retail destinations.
Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The ensuing 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan provides a vision and specific steps for creating an inviting,
safe, and connected pedestrian network. The plan establishes a framework for developing and maintaining
pedestrian facilities and recommends policies, programs, and messaging to promote walking. That includes
the following relevant recommended policies:
Infrastructure and Operations
178
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 20
• Develop/adopt a Complete Streets Design Manual
• Design standard speeds in pedestrian areas do not require a routine need for traffic calming
• Adopt a Complete Streets internal checklist
• Formalize traffic calming practices
• Reconsider speed limit criteria
• 15 mph zones near schools, parks, community facilities, or senior housing
• Establish an accessible design checklist
Evaluation and Planning
• Include pedestrian and bicycle counts as a routine element of motor vehicle counts
• Conduct pedestrian and bicycle counts for the planning/evaluation of the City's trail system
Education and Enforcement
• Continue promoting walking and biking through the SR2S program
• Develop/implement targeted safety campaigns for other groups (adults, seniors, drivers)
Project Implementation
• Secure funding for broader education efforts
• Continue to collaborate with related and adjacent agencies
• Explore opportunities for improving coordination with major employers
• Develop a line item in the CIP for implementation of the PTP
Vision Zero Action Plan
Finally, the 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan focused on broad strategies and actions aimed at eliminating severe
injuries and fatalities on the City’s transportation network. Of particular note, it identified a High Injury
Network (HIN) and a set of High Injury Intersections (HII) based on collision history. This set of HIN and HII
areas should be priorities for targeted investment of many of the recommendations in this memo. Robust
community engagement on this plan resulted in the following relevant recommended policies:
• A.1 - Establish a Vision Zero Task Force
• A.2 - Identify sustainable funding sources for a Vision Zero program
• A.6 - Integrate Vision Zero safety principles into forthcoming City plans and design documents
• A.8 - Continue monitoring existing speed limits on City streets in accordance with the changes made by AB
43 to further lower speeds
• A.12 - Set up periodic pedestrian and cyclist counts at standardized locations
• B.2 - Create a carefully ranked roster of extra safety projects
• B.3 - Install quick, light, and adaptable projects proven to achieve real, tangible benefits (Quick-Build
projects)
• B.6 - Update signal timing plans to enhance safety for all modes of transportation, which may include
adjustments to all-red intervals and pedestrian crossing times.
• B.8 - Create an internal procedure for evaluating and implementing Vision Zero countermeasures on
projects located within the HIN
• B.9 - When identifying safety enhancements, ensure countermeasures align with the City's Complete
Streets policy
• D.1 - Implement the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
• D.2 - Prioritize pedestrian crossing improvements on the High Injury Network
• D.3 - Complete projects that enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety at intersections with turning vehicles
• D.4 - Develop and maintain an Active Transportation Plan
• D.5 - Install high-visibility crosswalks in proximity to schools.
• D.6 - Develop a comprehensive Safe Routes to Schools Plan
179
Active Transportation Plan Impact Evaluation Guidelines
Following the Council-approved initiation of any new Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
project, and when parking or traffic impacts are identified during the preliminary
engineering phase (30% design), staff will return to the City Council to present the final
30% design, identified impacts, and potential trade-offs. At that meeting, the Council
will determine whether the project should undergo a detailed impact analysis tailored
to its specific impacts. This level of analysis requires a degree of design detail that is
available only once the 30% design phase has been completed.
The detailed impact analysis described in these guidelines is intentionally scheduled for
this phase of a project because at this phase, the City is advancing a concept from the
ATP into preliminary design. It does not approve final plans or commit to construction.
The purpose of this early design effort is to translate a plan-level concept into a specific
layout that defines lane configurations, parking, intersection control, and other
geometric and operational details.
A 30% level of design is necessary to evaluate traffic and parking impacts with technical
accuracy because traffic analysis tools, such as Synchro, TransCAD, Cube, or Inrix-
based models, require defined lane assignments, turn pockets, signal phasing, parking
layouts, and other project features not known prior to 30% design in order to produce
meaningful estimates of delay, queues, diversion patterns, and parking utilization.
By conducting a detailed analysis at the 30% phase, the City balances accuracy with
flexibility. A complete set of 30% design plans is sufficient for accurate modeling and is
early enough in the design process to allow the Council to call for modifications or
discontinue the project if the identified impacts are unacceptable. In addition, tying the
analysis to the identification of parking or traffic impacts at 30% ensures that funding is
focused on projects where the preliminary design reveals meaningful operational or
parking impacts, rather than expending significant resources on every concept in the
ATP, regardless of its risk profile.
Accordingly, if the Council requests an impact analysis following the 30% phase, then
additional budget must be approved for the project’s Engineering Services Consultant
to manage data collection and to evaluate the 30% design within the context of the
City’s transportation network through traffic or parking analysis.
180
The tasks below summarize the scope of what could potentially be required for project
impact analysis. Following the completion of 30% design for impacted projects, the
Consultant will prepare a cost estimate for transportation analysis, which will also be
presented to the Council for consideration when the Council reviews the 30% plans.
If Council supports this approach, staff will incorporate this impact evaluation
framework into the final Active Transportation Plan as an internal policy that then
applies to new ATP projects.
The tasks below may not apply to all projects, but it is assumed that impact analysis
would roughly equate to 10% of project construction costs.
Task 1. Data Collection and Analysis Memorandum
Cost: $5,000 - $10,000
Prepare a memorandum describing the proposed approach to data collection and
analysis. The memo will list all relevant data to be collected based on the project’s
determined impacts and document sources, formats, and methods. This could include
signal phasing, vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle counts, an inventory of existing traffic
control devices, or an inventory of parking supply. It will specify which transportation
network or traffic operation elements, such as intersection delay, roadway segment
operations, or parking, each dataset will support. The draft memorandum will be
submitted to City staff for review before initiating data collection.
Task 2. Initial Data Collection
Cost: $15,000 - $30,000
• Obtain commercially available origin–destination data, through providers such as
StreetLight, Inrix, or Replica for the project area, including both peak periods.
Collect turning-movement counts at project area intersections for both peak periods,
including vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes, right-turn-on-red movements,
and initial queues at signalized intersections.
• Conduct a field visit of the project site and broader study area to verify existing and
planned facilities identified in the data collection tasks, confirm any facilities
constructed since prior programming documents, and investigate unusual trends in
traffic patterns.
181
Task 3. Traffic Operations Analysis
Cost: $20,000 - $40,000
• Document existing conditions based on collected counts and field observations.
Results will be summarized in narrative text, Level of Service (LOS) tables, figures
visualizing lane configurations, traffic controls, and volumes, and supporting
calculation outputs. If appropriate for evaluating the impacts of interest, speeds
along the project area will be estimated and validated based on the City’s latest
Engineering Traffic Survey, and queue lengths in dedicated turn lanes and through
lanes between intersections under gridlock conditions will be evaluated.
• Develop and refine Synchro traffic models to represent Existing and Existing-Plus-
Project conditions. The models will be used to identify any adverse or significant
impacts associated with the proposed project improvements.
• Assess proposed intersection and corridor layouts for accessibility, including lane
widths and turning radii, and identify opportunities for new or modified traffic
control devices to support operations and safety.
• Develop recommendations to address identified potential operational impacts.
Task 4: Parking Impact Analysis (If needed)
Cost: $5,000 - $15,000
• Prior to conducting a parking survey, develop a geodatabase of on-street parking
supply along the project area. The database will count, by block face, the number of
spaces, as well as all applicable parking regulations, such as permits. The initial
inventory will rely on the City’s GIS database, aerial imagery, and street-level
photography, then verified in the field, and summarized in an exhibit that depicts
curb conditions and the total existing parking supply.
• Perform parking occupancy counts at 30-minute intervals by block face during
typical weekday midday (noon–2:00 p.m.) and evening (8:00–10:00 p.m.) periods,
and on a Saturday to represent weekend conditions.
• Compare parking supply changes associated with the project design to observed
parking demand to quantify the number of on-street spaces affected. The analysis
will include spaces in front of nearby properties within a 500-foot buffer of the
182
affected spaces to determine potential redistribution and broader neighborhood
impacts.
Task 5: Impact Report
Cost: $5,000 - $10,000
The combined work will result in a set of findings and recommendations on specific
traffic operations and parking impacts resulting from the project. The report will be
used to inform potential further project development and frame public
communications. The report will be evaluated by the City Council to assess the extent of
the impacts and consider whether the project’s preliminary design should be modified
to minimize the learned impacts or discontinued entirely.
183
Project Effectiveness Guidelines
This memo describes the process for using data to measure the success of new projects
recommended in the Active Transportation Plan (ATP), specifically for Class II, Class
IIB, and Class IV bicycle facilities. The goal of this approach is to ensure that
transportation projects developed by the ATP and completed through the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) successfully advance the City’s goals and priorities.
The ATP supports two City policy priorities. These are traffic safety (Vision Zero Action
Plan) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Action Plan). The City’s Vision
Zero Action Plan calls for eliminating serious and fatal collisions by 2040, and the
Climate Action Plan seeks to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions in part
by shifting short driving trips to walking, biking, and transit.
To demonstrate progress toward these goals, staff must track the number of people
using new facilities and the safety of those facilities. This proposed data-driven
evaluation approach will allow the City to answer basic but important questions, such
as whether these projects encourage the use of active transportation modes, whether
collision rates are decreasing even as ridership increases, and, potentially, which types
of improvements deliver the greatest benefits.
The City does not currently own the counting technology needed to answer these
questions on a citywide scale. Historically, staff has relied on occasional spot counts or
project-specific traffic studies, which provide only short snapshots of bicycle and
pedestrian volumes. To fully measure the effect of new ATP projects, staff proposes
establishing an approach that combines a one-time citywide baseline count effort along
with project-specific before-and-after counts for key bikeway projects. This will require
the purchase or lease of bike-ped counting equipment and, potentially, the associated
analytics software, so bicycle and pedestrian activity can be measured in a repeatable
way.
Staff recommends that the first action of the ATP should be to conduct a comprehensive
baseline bicycle and pedestrian count at several top ATP bicycle project locations across
the City. This initial effort would record how many people are currently biking (and
walking, where feasible). The equipment could be repositioned over several weeks or
months to cover a variety of ATP project locations, providing the City with a clearer
picture of existing conditions.
184
For future Council-approved and initiated bikeway projects, staff proposes a before-
and-after evaluation for Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bikeways. As a project moves
into design, staff will begin a data collection period at the project location to determine
existing volumes. Counters would be deployed at a set of locations along the project
limits to record bicycle activity on typical weekdays and weekends. At the same time,
staff would track reported collisions using Sheriff reports and SWITRS. This establishes
a clear pre-project picture of both ridership and safety.
After the project is constructed and open to the public, and a suitable amount of time
has passed to account for possible changes in transportation behavior, staff will repeat
this process during the post-project period, using the same locations and equipment to
ensure comparable data. With these two datasets, staff can calculate changes in average
daily and peak-period bicycle volumes, as well as changes in collision rates. The key
metric will not just be the number of collisions, but collisions relative to the number of
bicyclists or pedestrians. A successful project will be one in which more people use the
facility while the collision rate per rider remains the same or decreases. This will be
referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which aligns with Vision Zero and
Climate Action Plan objectives.
To proceed with this approach, the City will need to either purchase equipment or
contract for services. One option is to purchase a set of movable counters. This would
involve an upfront capital cost but would give the City full control over how and when
the equipment is deployed. This approach would also build internal expertise over
time. Another option is to lease equipment or work with a contractor that provides
turnkey services, including counter deployment, data processing, and reporting. This
method would reduce the upfront cost and technical burden, but could be more
expensive if used intensively over many years. A hybrid approach is also possible, in
which the City purchases a small number of cameras for ongoing monitoring and
supplements them with leased equipment or contractor services for larger, one-time
efforts such as the initial baseline count.
Staff envisions this work rolling out in phases. In the near term, following Council
direction, staff would refine this evaluation approach, identify preferred equipment and
procurement approaches, and bring forward a funding request. Once counters or
services are secured, staff will conduct the baseline count at ATP priority project
locations. As ATP individual projects advance, staff will complete the one-year before-
185
and-after evaluations and prepare project summaries for Council and the community
that describe changes in volumes and safety. Ultimately, this data can be incorporated
into public-facing tools such as dashboards or annual reports for residents to review
projects.
This approach is intended to improve transparency and accountability around active
transportation projects. It gives Council a simple way to compare projects and project
types, it allows designs to be refined based on what works best in practice, and it creates
a feedback loop between adopted policy goals and actual outcomes. By committing to
this measurement approach, the City can signal that success is defined not only by miles
of bikeway delivered, but by quantifiable improvements in safety and mode shift
toward sustainable transportation.
If Council supports this approach, staff will incorporate these guidelines into the final
ATP as an internal policy that then applies to new ATP projects.
186