The URL can be used to link to this page

08-01-2017 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 5:00 PM 10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue Tuesday, August 1, 2017 Non-televised Special Meeting Closed Session (5:00) and Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Tuesday, August 01, 2017, commencing at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL - 5:00 PM City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: Emmy Glumac v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 17CV309611 2.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV281214 Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO August 1, 2017City Council AGENDA 3.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one potential case) 4.Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Properties: 10849 Sycamore Drive, Cupertino, California; APN 342-57-028. Agency Negotiators: David Brandt, Jaqui Guzman. Negotiating Parties: Carol Atwood. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- 6:45 PM Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: 2017 Accomplishments of Community Enlightenment (ACE) Award Recommended Action: Present ACE Award from Library Commission to 2017 Recipients - Cupertino Poet Laureate Steering Committee POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 2.Subject: Approve the July 5 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the July 5 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO August 1, 2017City Council AGENDA 3.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 14, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-065 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 14, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 4.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 21, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-066 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 21, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 5.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 28, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-067 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 28, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 6.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 5, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-068 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending May 5, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 7.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 12, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-069 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending May 12, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 8.Subject: Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending June 2017 Recommended Action: Accept the report Staff Report A - Investment Portfolio B - Wells Fargo Value Comparison Report QE June 2017 C - Supplemental Portfolio Analysis Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO August 1, 2017City Council AGENDA 9.Subject: Adopt the draft resolution to add the City Manager as an alternate signor on the Authorization for Transfer of Funds form for the Local Agency Investment Fund in case there is a City Officer vacancy Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-070 adding the City Manager as an alternate signor on the Authorization for Transfer of Funds form for the Local Agency Investment Fund in case there is a City Officer vacancy Staff Report A - Draft Resolution 10.Subject: 2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks Project, Project No. 2017-112 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a contract with JJR Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,648,138 and approve a construction contingency of $250,000, for a total of $2,898,138 Staff Report A - Bid Summary B - Draft Contract 11.Subject: 2017 Pavement Maintenance Project Phase 3, City Project No. 2017-111 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to O’Grady Paving, Inc., in the amount of $2,250,943.75; and approve a construction contingency of $249,056.25 for a total of $2,500,000 Staff Report A - Draft Contract 12.Subject: Award of the Storm Drain Improvements - Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road Project Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to Con-Quest Contractors Inc., in the amount of $1,089,715 and approve a construction contingency of $200,000, for a total of $1,289,715 Staff Report A - Draft Contract Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO August 1, 2017City Council AGENDA 13.Subject: Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project (Project No. 2017-04) Recommended Action: 1. Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project with Aegis ITS, Inc. in the amount of$264,764.33; and 2. Authorize a construction contingency budget of $26,500.00, approximately 10% of the contract amount, to address unforeseen conditions during construction, for a total of $291,264.33 Staff Report A - Draft Contract SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 14.Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to regulate the placement of storage containers and temporary fencing, size of signage notice boards for development, size of Accessory Dwelling Units, and including amendments to various other chapters of Title 19 - Zoning of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to, Chapter 19.08 (Definitions), Chapter 19.28 (Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones), Chapter 19.36 , Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zones, Chapter 19.40 (Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones), Chapter 19.60 (General Commercial (CG) Zones), Chapter 19.64, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones and 19.116 (Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments ) for compliance with State Law, readability, clarifications, and internal consistency. (Application No. MCA-2017-03; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide) Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 17-2165: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 9.22, Property Maintenance, Chapter 19.12, Administration, Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units In R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones, and minor amendments in Chapter 19.08, Definitions, Chapter 19.24, Agricultural (A) and Agricultural-Residential (A-1) Zones, Chapter 19.28, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones, Chapter 19.36, Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zones, Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial (CG) Zones, Chapter 19.64, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones And 19.116, Conversions Of Apartment Projects To Common Interest Developments" Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance B - Changes since first reading Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO August 1, 2017City Council AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 15.Subject: 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan Recommended Action: Conduct the Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution No. 17-071 approving the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Housing Commission Resolution 17-03 C - 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan 16.Subject: Consider whether to authorize the formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications for the three proposals received in the 2017 Second Cycle including: 16A - Hotel at Cupertino Village site; 16B - Hotel at Good Year Tire store site; and 16C - Mixed-use development at the Oaks Shopping Center. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 17-072 (Attachment A) after determining if the application(s) is/are authorized to move forward to apply for a General Plan Amendment(s) Cover Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - CC Resolution No. 15-078 16a.Subject: A proposal to demolish two commercial buildings and construct a new full-service boutique hotel with 185 rooms and conference space and restaurant at the Cupertino Village that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2017-03; Applicant: Michael Strahs (Kimco Realty); Location: 10765 N. Wolfe Road; APN(s): 316-45-017) 16A - Staff Report for Cupertino Village site (hotel) 16A.1 - Proposed Plans and Project Description 16A.2 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Cupertino Village site 16b.Subject: A proposal to demolish a 8,323 s.f. auto service station and construct a new 156-room, five-story hotel, with conference space and restaurant at the Good Year Tire site that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2017-01; Applicant: Claudio Bono (De Anza Properties); Location: 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard; APN(s): 326-10-061 16B - Staff Report 16B.1 - Goodyear Tire site project plans and Project Description 16B.2 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Good Year Tire site Page 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO August 1, 2017City Council AGENDA 16c.Subject: A proposal to demolish an existing ~71,254 sq.ft. commercial shopping center and construct one of the two alternative mixed-use developments at the Oaks Shopping Center site that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of one of the alternatives for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2017-02; Applicant: KT Urban (Mark Tersini); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 326-27-039, -040 and -041) 16C - Staff Report for Oaks Shopping Center 16C.1 - Alt. 1 (mixed-use residential) proposed plans 16C.2 - Alt. 2 (mixed-use gateway) proposed plans 16C.3 - Project Description and other studies 16C.4 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Oaks Shopping Center 16C.5 - Public comments ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 17.Subject: Hearing to approve assessment of fees on private parcels for the annual weed abatement program Recommended Action: Conduct hearing and adopt Resolution No. 17-073 providing for lien assessments and collection resulting from the abatement of public nuisances and potential fire hazards (weeds on private parcels) Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Exhibit A-1 Assessment Report REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 18.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT Page 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO August 1, 2017City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 8 CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2815 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/17/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: Emmy Glumac v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 17CV309611 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1)of subdivision (d)of Government Code Section 54956.9.Name of case:Emmy Glumac v.City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 17CV309611 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2651 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/17/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of case: City of Saratoga; City of Cupertino; Town of Los Gatos v. California Department of Transportation, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV281214 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1)of subdivision (d)of Government Code Section 54956.9.Name of case:City of Saratoga;City of Cupertino;Town of Los Gatos v.California Department of Transportation,et al.,Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV281214 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2855 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/25/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one potential case) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:Conference with Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one potential case) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2813 Name: Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/13/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Properties: 10849 Sycamore Drive, Cupertino, California; APN 342-57-028. Agency Negotiators: David Brandt, Jaqui Guzman. Negotiating Parties: Carol Atwood. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Properties: 10849 Sycamore Drive, Cupertino, California; APN 342-57-028. Agency Negotiators: David Brandt, Jaqui Guzman. Negotiating Parties: Carol Atwood. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2701 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/2/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: 2017 Accomplishments of Community Enlightenment (ACE) Award Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: 2017 Accomplishments of Community Enlightenment (ACE) Award Present ACE Award from Library Commission to 2017 Recipients -Cupertino Poet Laureate Steering Committee CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-2052 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:10/4/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Approve the July 5 City Council minutes Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Minutes Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: Approve the July 5 City Council minutes Approve the July 5 City Council minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 1 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, July 5, 2017 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING At 5:30 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the Special City Council meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue. Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul, and Councilmembers Barry Chang, Steven Scharf, and Rod Sinks. Council went into closed session and reconvened in open session at 6:22 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue for the Special Meeting of the Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation. CLOSED SESSION 1. Subject: Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Properties: APN 375-21-001, Lawrence Expressway at Mitty Avenue and APN 381-19-015, Lawrence Expressway at Doyle Road. Agency Negotiators: Jaqui Guzman and Gail Seeds. Negotiating Parties: San Jose Water Company; County Roads and Airports; City of San Jose. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment. Mayor Vaidhyanathan announced that Council gave direction to staff. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the Regular City Council meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of Allegiance. City Council Minutes July 5, 2017 2 Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Councilmembers Barry Chang, Steven Scharf, and Rod Sinks. Absent: Vice Mayor Darcy Paul. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Presentation regarding the Fourth of July activities Recommended Action: Receive the presentation Written communications for this item included a staff presentation. Director of Recreation and Community Services Jeff Milkes gave a presentation regarding the Fourth of July activities. Council received the presentation. POSTPONEMENTS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Shaurya Shrivastava, on behalf of Rising International, gave a presentation regarding human trafficking and organizational programs for prevention and helping survivors. Jennifer Griffin talked about the San Jose Urban Village project, including locations at Bollinger/Miller and De Anza/Prospect, and a San Jose vote postponement until August. Sowmya Kolluru, on behalf of Sources for Success, gave a presentation regarding healthcare and rehabilitation of the homeless population and low income families. Janet Van Zoeren, Housing Choices Coalition Cupertino Task Force founder, talked about advocating for affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities. (She distributed written comments). Eswari Sure, on behalf of Housing Choices Coalition Cupertino Task Force, talked about advocating for affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities. Jan Stokley, Housing Choices Coalition Cupertino Task Force Executive Director, talked about advocating for affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities. CONSENT CALENDAR City Council Minutes July 5, 2017 3 Sinks moved and Chang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented except for item number 6 which was pulled for discussion . Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 2. Subject: Approve the June 20 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the June 20 City Council minutes 3. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 14, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-061 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 14, 2017 4. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 5, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-062 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending May 5, 2017 5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 12, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-063 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending May 12, 2017 6. Subject: Establishment of Friendship City Relationships Recommended Action: Review and consider four (4) applications establishing Friendship City relationships with Haikou, People’s Republic of China; Jilin, People’s Republic of China; Guiyang, People’s Republic of China; Naning, People’s Republic of China; and Nantong, People’s Republic of China Written communications for this item included an updated staff report. Staff answered questions from Council. The following individuals spoke on this item: Ming Ching (Naning) Aijin Deng (Naning) James Li (Nantong) Susan Gu (Jilin) Liang (Jilin) Ming Shao (Haikou) Colby (Haikou) Student (Haikou) Zhijie Liang City Council Minutes July 5, 2017 4 Chang moved and Paul seconded to establish Friendship City relationships with Haikou, People’s Republic of China; Jilin, People’s Republic of China; Naning, People’s Republic of China; and Nantong, People’s Republic of China. The motion carried unanimously. 7. Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Boiling Fish, Inc. (dba Boiling Fish), 19634 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for Boiling Fish, Inc. (dba Boiling Fish), 19634 Stevens Creek Boulevard 8. Subject: Proposed Lease with AT&T Wireless for colocation on the existing cell tower located on the Civic Center Property (10300 Torre Avenue), subject to the terms of any previously issued City planning permits Recommended Action: Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No . 17-064 to: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an Antenna Ground Lease between the City of Cupertino and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T Wireless) for a term of up to five years, for colocation on the existing cell tower located on the Civic Center Property, in substantially the form as presented to Council, and subject to the terms of any City-issued permits; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute up to two additional five year (5 -year) options consistent with the terms of the Lease 9. Subject: Storm Drain Improvements - Foothill Blvd and Cupertino Road - Rebid authority to award contract Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award and execute the Storm Drain Improvements -Foothill Blvd and Cupertino Road - Rebid Project contract and authorize a construction contingency budget up to 10% of the project contract, if the lowest responsive bid is within the established budget and there are no unresolved bid protests 10. Subject: Award and execute a contract for the Varian and Monta Vista Parks Courts Resurfacing Project (Project No. 2017-13.02) Recommended Action: 1. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a construction contract for Varian and Monta Vista Parks Courts Resurfacing Project, if the lowest responsive bid is within the establis hed budget and there are no unresolved bid protests; and 2. Authorize a construction contingency budget of up to 10% of the construction contract amount, to address unforeseen conditions during construction City Council Minutes July 5, 2017 5 11. Subject: Regnart Road Slope Stabilization Project, Project No. 2017-13 Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution No 17-065 to: 1. Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a contract with Granite Rock Company, in the amount of $357,418 and approve a construction contingency of $71,500, for a total of $428,918; and 2. Approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $270,282 to the Transportation Fund 270-82-821 900-990 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 12. Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending Title 16 Chapter 16.72 Sections 16.72.010, 16.72.020, 16.72.030, 16.72.040, 16.72.050, 16.72.060, and 16.72.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Recycling and Diversion Requirements for Construction and Demolition Waste Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 17-2164: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 16 Chapter 16.72 Sections 16.72.010, 16.72.020, 16.72.030, 16.72.040, 16.72.050, 16.72.060, and 16.72.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Recycling and Diversion Requirements for Construction and Demolition Waste" to be consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code Deputy City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia read the title of the ordinance. Sinks moved and Chang seconded to read Ordinance No. 17-2164 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf, and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. Subject: Municipal Code Amendments to regulate the placement of storage containers and temporary fencing (Chapter 9.22 - Property Maintenance), size of signage notice boards for development (Chapter 19.12 - Administration), size of Accessory Dwelling Units (Chapter 19.112 - Accessory Dwelling Units in R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones), and including amendments to various other chapters of Title 19 - Zoning of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to, Chapter 19.08 (Definitions), Chapter 19.28 (Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones), Chapter 19.40 (Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones), Chapter 19.60 (General Commercial (CG) Zones), and 19.116 (Conversions of Apartment Projects to City Council Minutes July 5, 2017 6 Common Interest Developments) for compliance with State Law, readability, clarifications, and internal consistency. Application No(s): MCA-2017-03, Applicant(s): City of Cupertino, Location: Citywide Recommended Action: That the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and 2. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 17 -2165: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 9.22, Property Maintenance, Chapter 19.12, Administration, Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units In R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones, and Minor Amendments in Chapter 19.08, Definitions, Chapter 19.24, Agricultural (A) And Agricultural-Residential (A-1) Zones, Chapter 19.28, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones, Chapter 19.36, Multiple- Family Residential (R-3) Zones, Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial (CG) Zones, Chapter 19.64, Permitted, Conditional And Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones And 19.116, Conversions Of Apartment Projects To Common Interest Developments" Written communications for this item included a staff presentation. Associate Planner Gian Martire reviewed the staff report. Staff answered questions from Council. Mayor Vaidhyanathan opened the public hearing and the following individuals spoke: Jennifer Griffin Mayor Vaidhyanathan closed the public hearing. Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to add language for the second reading to allow storage containers for no more than 15 days on two separate non-contiguous occasions, up to a total of 30 days within in a 12-month period; consider adding language regarding allowing a storage container to be located outside the front and street side set back behind a conforming residential fence during permitted, continuous and active construction. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None; and Sinks moved and Vaidhyanathan seconded to find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf, and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None; and Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to accept the staff recommendation and amend City Council Minutes July 5, 2017 7 Chapter 19.12, Administration, regarding signage associated with development. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None; and Sinks moved and Chang seconded to amend Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units in R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones and to accept the Planning Commission recommendation (May 23, 2017) and to establish a minimum size of 150 s.f. and a maximum allowable size of 10% of the net lot area, up to 1,000 s.f. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, and Sinks. Noes: Scharf. Abstain: None. Absent: None; and Sinks moved and Chang seconded to amend Chapter 9.22, Property Maintenance, to allow temporary fencing during permitted, active and ongoing construction only. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf, and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None; and Sinks moved and Chang seconded to adopt the proposed amendments related to clarification and readability, including but not limited to, Chapter 9.22, Property Maintenance, Chapter 19.12, Administration, Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones, and 19.116, Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments for clarification and readability. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf, and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Sinks moved and Chang seconded to adopt the proposed amendments related to consistency in Title 19, including but not limited to, Minor Amendments in Chapter 19.08, Definitions, Chapter 19.24, Agricultural (A) And Agricultural-Residential (A-1) Zones, Chapter 19.24, Agricultural (A) And Agricultural-Residential (A-1) Zones, Chapter 19.28, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones, Chapter 19.36, Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial (CG) Zones, Chapter 19.64, Permitted, Conditional And Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones, and 19.116, Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf, and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Deputy City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia read the title of the ordinance. Sinks moved and Chang seconded to read Ordinance No. 17-2165 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang, Scharf, and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. City Council Minutes July 5, 2017 8 ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 14. Subject: Designation of voting delegate and alternates for League of California Cities Annual Conference, September 13-15, Sacramento Recommended Action: Designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates for League of California Cities Annual Conference, September 13 -15, Sacramento Sinks moved and Paul seconded to designate Mayor Vaidhyanathan as voting delegate and Councilmember Scharf as alternate for League of California Cities Annual Conference, September 13-15, Sacramento. REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 15. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. City Manager David Brandt reminded Council of the July 18 City Council meeting cancellation. ADJOURNMENT At 10:04 p.m., Mayor Vaidhyanathan adjourned the meeting. ________________________________ Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2826 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/20/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 14, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 14, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-065 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 14, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING April 14, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of August, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2829 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/20/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 21, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 21, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-066 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 21, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING April 21, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of August, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2827 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/20/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 28, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending April 28, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-067 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending April 28, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING April 28, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of August, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2828 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/20/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 5, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 5, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-068 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending May 5, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING May 5, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of August, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2830 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/20/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 12, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending May 12, 2017 Adopt Resolution No. 17-069 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending May 12, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING May 12, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of August, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2779 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/6/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending June 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Investment Portfolio B - Wells Fargo Value Comparison Report QE June 2017 C - Supplemental Portfolio Analysis Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 Audit Committee7/11/2017 1 Subject: Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending June 2017 Accept the report CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject Treasurer’s Investment Report for Quarter Ending June 2017 Recommended Action Accept the report Discussion and Fiscal Impact The attached slides and investment portfolio listing comprise the Treasurer’s Investment Report. Together they show the composition of the portfolio; total portfolio yield in comparison to the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the 1-year Treasury, and the 2-year Treasury; diversification within the government agency securities; and portfolio compliance with the City’s Investment Policy. For quarter ending June 30, 2017, the market value of the City’s portfolio total $143.4 million which is $10 million higher than last quarter. The portfolio’s average yield was 1.00% which is a decrease from its 1.06% yield of the previous quarter ending March 31, 2017. The average length to maturity decreased from 1.24 to 1.03 years. The LAIF yield increased to 0.78% from last quarter’s yield of 0.76%. LAIF’s balance was $40.8 million which is in compliance with the City Investment Policy and state code. LAIF’s same- or next-day liquidity insures that the City is able to pay its obligations for the next six months and also provides strong liquidity in the short, intermediate, and long-term horizons. Market values on individual securities in the investment portfolio are provided by Wells Fargo Bank Institutional Trust Services using valuations from Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data, Inc. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kristina Alfaro, City Treasurer Approved by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Investment Portfolio B - Wells Fargo Value Comparison Report C – Supplemental Portfolio Analysis City of Cupertino Investment Portfolio June 30, 2017 ACTIVITY DATE COUPON ADJUSTED MATURITY MARKET UNREALIZEDPURCHASEMATURITYDESCRIPTIONRATEYTMCOSTVALUEVALUEPROFIT/LOSS SECURITIES MATURED 06/07/16 05/12/21 Agency notes - FNMA (called 5/12/17)0.90%1.87% 06/23/14 06/15/17 US Treasury Note 0.88%0.95% SECURITIES PURCHASED 04/18/17 10/26/17 Agency notes - FNMA 0.88%0.90%999,914 1,000,000 999,270 (644) 04/18/17 05/21/18 Agency notes - FNMA 0.88%1.09%998,097 1,000,000 996,610 (1,487) 06/22/17 10/11/19 Agency notes - FHLB 2.00%1.43%2,025,594 2,000,000 2,021,980 (3,614) 06/22/17 05/16/20 Agency notes - FHLB 1.50%1.58%1,995,613 2,000,000 1,993,000 (2,613) CITY PORTFOLIOCASH06/30/17 Wells Fargo - Workers Comp Checking 19,909 19,909 19,909 06/30/17 Wells Fargo - Regular Checking - - - 06/30/17 Wells Fargo - Repurchase Agreements 0.08%0.08%6,436,534 6,436,534 6,436,534 6,456,443 6,456,443 6,456,443 LAIF 06/30/17 LAIF - State Pool 0.78%0.78%40,885,119 40,885,119 40,885,119 MONEY MARKET FUNDS 06/30/17 Wells Fargo Advantage 100% Treasury 0.31%0.31%6,333,531 6,333,531 6,333,531 6,333,531 6,333,531 6,333,531 GOVERNMENT AGENCY NOTES 07/07/14 07/07/17 Agency notes - FHLMC 1.00%1.00%2,999,898 3,000,000 3,000,030 132 10/03/14 09/22/17 Agency notes - FFCB 1.13%1.12%3,000,034 3,000,000 2,999,730 (304) 04/18/17 10/26/17 Agency notes - FNMA 0.88%0.90%999,914 1,000,000 999,290 (624) 12/31/14 12/18/17 Agency notes - FFCB 1.13%1.14%999,949 1,000,000 999,630 (319) 09/30/14 01/12/18 Agency notes - FHLMC 0.75%1.26%997,328 1,000,000 997,680 352 09/30/14 03/07/18 Agency notes - FHLMC 0.88%1.32%997,030 1,000,000 997,410 380 03/30/15 03/12/18 Agency notes - FFCB 1.13%0.95%2,002,399 2,000,000 1,997,900 (4,499) 03/28/16 03/28/18 Agency notes - FHLB 1.09%1.09%2,000,000 2,000,000 1,994,280 (5,720) 04/02/15 04/02/18 Agency notes - FFCB 1.00%0.98%3,000,446 3,000,000 2,995,830 (4,616) 05/11/15 05/11/18 Agency notes - FFCB 1.03%1.08%1,999,121 2,000,000 1,995,580 (3,541) 04/18/17 05/21/18 Agency notes - FNMA 0.88%1.09%998,097 1,000,000 996,580 (1,517) 07/23/14 06/08/18 Agency notes - FHLB 1.25%1.39%2,996,145 3,000,000 2,998,890 2,745 05/07/15 08/07/18 Agency notes - FHLB 1.05%1.13%1,998,229 2,000,000 1,994,520 (3,709) 09/12/16 09/06/18 Agency notes - FFCB 0.93%0.82%3,003,893 3,000,000 2,987,790 (16,103) 01/26/17 10/26/18 Agency notes - FHLB 1.20%1.20%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,995,950 (4,050) 02/01/17 02/01/19 Agency notes - FFCB 1.30%1.30%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,993,010 (6,990) 05/07/15 02/27/19 Agency notes - FNMA 1.68%1.30%1,006,129 1,000,000 1,002,810 (3,319) 06/22/16 03/22/19 Agency notes - FHLMC 1.25%1.25%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,985,420 (14,580) 11/23/16 05/24/19 Agency notes - FHLMC 1.30%1.30%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,986,650 (13,350) 10/16/15 09/13/19 Agency notes - FHLB 2.00%1.21%2,033,824 2,000,000 2,021,660 (12,164) 06/22/17 10/11/19 Agency notes - FHLB 2.00%1.43%2,025,594 2,000,000 2,021,020 (4,574) 11/23/16 11/18/19 Agency notes - FFCB 1.10%1.36%1,987,822 2,000,000 1,979,480 (8,342) 03/30/16 12/30/19 Agency notes - FHLMC 1.50%1.50%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,994,360 (5,640) 06/30/16 12/30/19 Agency notes - FHLMC 1.02%1.02%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,949,570 (50,430) 06/22/17 05/16/20 Agency notes - FHLB 1.50%1.58%1,995,613 2,000,000 1,991,440 (4,173) 05/31/16 05/26/20 Agency notes - FHLMC 1.35%1.35%2,000,000 2,000,000 1,967,580 (32,420) 05/26/16 05/26/20 Agency notes - FNMA 1.38%1.38%2,000,000 2,000,000 1,970,100 (29,900) 06/30/16 06/30/20 Agency notes - FHLMC 1.50%1.50%2,000,000 2,000,000 1,987,800 (12,200) 05/25/16 11/25/20 Agency notes - FNMA 1.50%1.50%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,947,470 (52,530) 01/19/17 12/10/21 Agency notes - FHLB 2.63%1.90%3,091,739 3,000,000 3,091,950 211 67,133,203 67,000,000 66,841,410 (291,793) US TREASURY SECURITIES 07/23/14 09/30/17 US Treasury Note 0.63%1.08%2,996,594 3,000,000 2,996,670 76 03/24/17 12/31/17 US Treasury Note 0.75%0.95%2,996,941 3,000,000 2,994,000 (2,941) 03/18/16 02/28/18 US Treasury Note 0.75%0.98%1,997,014 2,000,000 1,993,900 (3,114) 09/12/16 08/31/18 US Treasury Note 0.75%0.71%2,000,928 2,000,000 1,986,880 (14,048) 11/23/16 10/31/18 US Treasury Note 0.75%1.04%2,988,487 3,000,000 2,976,810 (11,677) 03/31/17 03/31/19 US Treasury Note 1.25%1.25%1,000,000 1,000,000 997,850 (2,150) 03/31/17 07/31/19 US Treasury Note 0.88%1.32%2,972,367 3,000,000 2,968,140 (4,227) 09/12/16 08/15/19 US Treasury Note 0.75%0.84%1,996,364 2,000,000 1,972,820 (23,544) 03/30/17 09/30/19 US Treasury Note 1.00%1.42%1,981,451 2,000,000 1,981,400 (51) 05/07/15 04/30/20 US Treasury Note 1.38%1.54%1,990,937 2,000,000 1,991,020 83 22,921,082 23,000,000 22,859,490 (61,592) Total Managed Portfolio 143,729,378 143,675,093 143,375,993 (353,385) Average Yield 1.00% Average Length to Maturity (in years) 1.03 Duration (calculated by USBank)1.47 City of Cupertino Investment Portfolio June 30, 2017 ACTIVITY DATE COUPON ADJUSTED MATURITY MARKET UNREALIZEDPURCHASEMATURITYDESCRIPTIONRATEYTMCOSTVALUEVALUEPROFIT/LOSS TRUST PORTFOLIO Institutional MM Account Wells Fargo Bank Secured 0.45%0.45%48,585 48,585 48,585 BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO Bond Lease Pymt Acct Goldman Sachs Financial Sq Money Mkt 0.10%0.10%1 1 1 Bond Reserve Acct Goldman Sachs Financial Sq Money Mkt 0.10%0.10%1 1 1 Total Bond Reserve Portfolio 2 2 2 WELLS FARGOMarket/Cost Value Comparison Report General ReportingBy Account By Industry Class From Month End 06/30/2017CITY OF CUPERTINO 07/12/2017 12:44:16 PM EDTACCOUNT: All Accounts Selected * = Trade or Other Activity Pending MaturityMarketFedGain/LossS & PMoody`sUnits inEncumbrdAsset IDUnitsDateValueTax CostAmount%RatingRatingTransitionUnitsACCOUNT:16737400CITY OF CUPERTINONET CASHNET CASH.0000$.00$.00$.00.00.0000.00U.S. DOLLARSSUBTOTAL.0000$.00$.00$.00.00.0000.00CASH SWEEPPROPRIETARY FUNDSVP45200046,333,530.7700$6,333,530.77$6,333,530.77$.00.00.0000.00WELLS FARGO 100% TREASURY MONEY MARKET FUND - #008NON-PROPRIETARY FUNDS99299594448,585.4900$48,585.49$48,585.49$.00.00.0000.00WFB PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL BANK DEPOSIT ACCOUNTSUBTOTAL6,382,116.2600$6,382,116.26$6,382,116.26$.00.00.0000.00US GOVERNMENTUS TREASURY NOTES AND BONDS9128282B52,000,000.000008/15/2019$1,972,820.00$1,995,000.00($22,180.00)(1.11)N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 08/15/16 0.750 08/15/20199128282C32,000,000.000008/31/2018$1,986,880.00$2,001,560.00($14,680.00)(.73)N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 08/31/16 0.750 08/31/2018912828K582,000,000.000004/30/2020$1,991,020.00$1,984,062.50$6,957.50.35N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 04/30/15 1.375 04/30/2020912828T833,000,000.000010/31/2018$2,976,810.00$2,983,320.00($6,510.00)(.22)N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 10/31/16 0.750 10/31/2018912828TH33,000,000.000007/31/2019$2,968,140.00$2,969,062.50($922.50)(.03)N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 07/31/12 0.875 07/31/2019912828TR12,000,000.000009/30/2019$1,981,400.00$1,979,375.00$2,025.00.10N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 10/01/12 1.000 09/30/2019912828TS93,000,000.000009/30/2017$2,996,670.00$2,956,875.00$39,795.001.35N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 10/01/12 0.625 09/30/2017912828UE83,000,000.000012/31/2017$2,994,000.00$2,995,312.50($1,312.50)(.04)N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 12/31/12 0.750 12/31/2017912828UR92,000,000.000002/28/2018$1,993,900.00$1,991,250.00$2,650.00.13N/AAAA.0000.00Page 1 WELLS FARGOMarket/Cost Value Comparison Report General ReportingBy Account By Industry Class From Month End 06/30/2017CITY OF CUPERTINO 07/12/2017 12:44:16 PM EDTACCOUNT: All Accounts Selected * = Trade or Other Activity Pending MaturityMarketFedGain/LossS & PMoody`sUnits inEncumbrdAsset IDUnitsDateValueTax CostAmount%RatingRatingTransitionUnitsUS TREASURY NOTE DTD 02/28/13 0.750 02/28/2018912828W971,000,000.000003/31/2019$997,850.00$1,000,000.00($2,150.00)(.21)N/AAAA.0000.00US TREASURY NOTE DTD 03/31/17 1.250 03/31/2019SUBTOTAL23,000,000.0000$22,859,490.00$22,855,817.50$3,672.50.02.0000.00FEDERAL AGENCYGOVERNMENT AGENCIES3130A57G82,000,000.000008/07/2018$1,994,520.00$1,994,780.00($260.00)(.01)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN BK DTD 05/07/15 1.050 08/07/20183130A7L862,000,000.000003/28/2018$1,994,280.00$2,000,000.00($5,720.00)(.29)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN BK DTD 03/28/16 1.090 03/28/20183130AAM473,000,000.000010/26/2018$2,995,950.00$3,000,000.00($4,050.00)(.13)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN BK DTD 01/26/17 1.200 10/26/20183130ABGP52,000,000.000005/19/2020$1,991,440.00$1,995,580.00($4,140.00)(.21)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN BK SER 0001313376C943,000,000.000012/10/2021$3,091,950.00$3,100,890.00($8,940.00)(.29)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN BK DTD 11/04/11 2.625 12/10/2021313378UP42,000,000.000010/11/2019$2,021,020.00$2,025,840.00($4,820.00)(.24)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN BK DTD 04/11/12 2.000 10/11/2019313379DT33,000,000.000006/08/2018$2,998,890.00$2,984,085.00$14,805.00.50AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN BK DTD 05/04/12 1.250 06/08/2018313383VN82,000,000.000009/13/2019$2,021,660.00$2,060,000.00($38,340.00)(1.86)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN BK DTD 08/12/13 2.000 09/13/20193133EDVU33,000,000.000009/22/2017$2,999,730.00$3,000,435.00($705.00)(.02)AA+AAA.0000.00FED FARM CREDIT BK DTD 09/22/14 1.125 09/22/20173133EEFE51,000,000.000012/18/2017$999,630.00$999,680.00($50.00)(.01)AA+AAA.0000.00FED FARM CREDIT BK DTD 12/18/14 1.125 12/18/20173133EEJ502,000,000.000005/11/2018$1,995,580.00$1,996,940.00($1,360.00)(.07)AA+AAA.0000.00FED FARM CREDIT BK DTD 05/11/15 1.030 05/11/20183133EETE02,000,000.000003/12/2018$1,997,900.00$2,010,140.00($12,240.00)(.61)AA+AAA.0000.00FED FARM CREDIT BK DTD 03/12/15 1.125 03/12/20183133EEWH93,000,000.000004/02/2018$2,995,830.00$3,001,770.00($5,940.00)(.20)AA+AAA.0000.00Page 2 WELLS FARGOMarket/Cost Value Comparison Report General ReportingBy Account By Industry Class From Month End 06/30/2017CITY OF CUPERTINO 07/12/2017 12:44:16 PM EDTACCOUNT: All Accounts Selected * = Trade or Other Activity Pending MaturityMarketFedGain/LossS & PMoody`sUnits inEncumbrdAsset IDUnitsDateValueTax CostAmount%RatingRatingTransitionUnitsFED FARM CREDIT BK DTD 04/02/15 1.000 04/02/20183133EG5Q43,000,000.000002/01/2019$2,993,010.00$3,000,000.00($6,990.00)(.23)AA+AAA.0000.00FED FARM CREDIT BK DTD 02/01/17 1.300 02/01/20193133EGJ302,000,000.000011/18/2019$1,979,480.00$1,984,760.00($5,280.00)(.27)AA+AAA.0000.00FED FARM CREDIT BK DTD 11/18/16 1.100 11/18/20193133EGTE53,000,000.000009/06/2018$2,987,790.00$3,006,510.00($18,720.00)(.62)AA+AAA.0000.00FED FARM CREDIT BK DTD 09/06/16 0.930 09/06/20183134G5AR63,000,000.000007/07/2017$3,000,030.00$2,999,625.00$405.00.01AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP MED TERM NOTE3134G8S833,000,000.000012/30/2019$2,994,360.00$3,000,000.00($5,640.00)(.19)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP MED TERM NOTE SER 00053134G9G433,000,000.000012/30/2019$2,949,570.00$3,000,000.00($50,430.00)(1.68)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP MED TERM NOTE3134G9MU83,000,000.000005/24/2019$2,986,650.00$3,000,000.00($13,350.00)(.44)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP DTD 05/31/16 1.300 05/24/20193134G9MW42,000,000.000005/26/2020$1,967,580.00$2,000,000.00($32,420.00)(1.62)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP MED TERM NOTE SER 00003134G9SB43,000,000.000003/22/2019$2,985,420.00$3,000,000.00($14,580.00)(.49)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP MED TERM NOTE3134G9SK42,000,000.000006/30/2020$1,987,800.00$2,000,000.00($12,200.00)(.61)AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP MED TERM NOTE SER 00013135G0PQ01,000,000.000010/26/2017$999,290.00$999,860.00($570.00)(.06)AA+AAA.0000.00FED NATL MTG ASSN DTD 09/24/12 0.875 10/26/20173135G0WJ81,000,000.000005/21/2018$996,580.00$997,670.00($1,090.00)(.11)AA+AAA.0000.00FED NATL MTG ASSN DTD 04/15/13 0.875 05/21/20183136FTP371,000,000.000002/27/2019$1,002,810.00$1,014,055.00($11,245.00)(1.11)AA+AAA.0000.00FED NATL MTG ASSN DTD 02/27/12 1.680 02/27/20193136G3QB42,000,000.000005/26/2020$1,970,100.00$2,000,000.00($29,900.00)(1.50)AA+AAA.0000.00FED NATL MTG ASSN DTD 05/26/16 1.375 05/26/20203136G3QQ13,000,000.000011/25/2020$2,947,470.00$3,000,000.00($52,530.00)(1.75)N/AN/A.0000.00FED NATL MTG ASSN SER 0002Page 3 WELLS FARGOMarket/Cost Value Comparison Report General ReportingBy Account By Industry Class From Month End 06/30/2017CITY OF CUPERTINO 07/12/2017 12:44:16 PM EDTACCOUNT: All Accounts Selected * = Trade or Other Activity Pending MaturityMarketFedGain/LossS & PMoody`sUnits inEncumbrdAsset IDUnitsDateValueTax CostAmount%RatingRatingTransitionUnits3137EADN61,000,000.000001/12/2018$997,680.00$983,640.00$14,040.001.43AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP SER 13137EADP11,000,000.000003/07/2018$997,410.00$985,100.00$12,310.001.25AA+AAA.0000.00FED HOME LN MTG CORP DTD 01/17/13 0.875 03/07/2018SUBTOTAL67,000,000.0000$66,841,410.00$67,141,360.00($299,950.00)(.45).0000.00ACCOUNT 16737400 TOTAL96,382,116.2600$96,083,016.26$96,379,293.76($296,277.50)(.31).0000.00GRAND TOTAL96,382,116.2600$96,083,016.26$96,379,293.76($296,277.50)(.31).0000.00END OF REPORTPage 4 Treasurer’s Investment Report Quarter Ending June 2017 City Council Meeting August 1, 2017 o Total portfolio increased from last quarter by $9.0 million, from $134.7 to $143.7 million o Average maturity decreased from 1.24 years to 1.03 o Average yield decreased from 1.02% to 1.00% o Duration decreased from 1.77 to 1.47 Portfolio Composition LAIF 28.5% Cash 4.5% Money Market 4.38% Agency Notes 46.7% US Treasuries 16.0% Yield Comparison 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60%Average Yield 2Y Treasury Cupertino LAIF 1Y Treasury Debt issued by federal credit agencies and fully backed by U.S. government guarantee but not its full faith and credit High credit rating - second only to Treasury bonds Maturity periods from 1 month to 15 years Agencies that can issue: •FHLMC - Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association (Freddie Mac) •FHLB - Federal Home Loan Bank •FNMA - Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) •FFCB - Federal Farm Credit Bureau Agency Diversification FHLB 28.5% FHLMC 31.3% FNMA 11.9% FFCB 28.3% Policy Compliance City of Cupertino June 30, 2017 Category Standard Comment Treasury Issues No limit Complies US Agencies No limit Complies Medium Term Corporate Bonds 30% with A rating Complies LAIF $50 million Complies Money Market Funds 20% Complies Maximum Maturities Up to 5 years Complies Per Issuer Max 10% (except for Treasuries and Agencies) Complies Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40% Complies Commercial Paper 270 days & 25% Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Complies Repurchase Agreements 365 days Complies Reverse Repurchase Agreements Prohibited Complies Cash Flow – Coverage The LAIF investment is $40.8 million and yielding 46 basis points lower than the 1-year Treasury bill. The City is able to pay its obligations for the next 6 months and overall liquidity is strong. 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 45,000,000 50,000,000 55,000,000 60,000,000 6-Month Liquidity CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2816 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/19/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Adopt the draft resolution to add the City Manager as an alternate signor on the Authorization for Transfer of Funds form for the Local Agency Investment Fund in case there is a City Officer vacancy Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject:Adopt the draft resolution to add the City Manager as an alternate signor on the Authorization for Transfer of Funds form for the Local Agency Investment Fund in case there is a City Officer vacancy Adopt Resolution No.17-070 adding the City Manager as an alternate signor on the Authorization for Transfer of Funds form for the Local Agency Investment Fund in case there is a City Officer vacancy CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject Adopt the draft resolution to add the City Manager as an alternative signor on the Authorization for Transfer of Funds form for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) in case of a City Officer vacancy. Recommended Action Adopt Resolution to add the City Manager as an alternative signor on the Authorization for Transfer of Funds form for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) in case of a City Officer vacancy. Background Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury. The State now requires a specific resolution be adopted by each agency authorizing the deposit or withdrawal of monies into LAIF. The attached State resolution sati sfies this requirement. Discussion and Fiscal Impact The State requires that there be two potential signatories on transactions involving the LAIF; typically the Deputy Treasurer and the Treasurer. Staff is proposing to add the City Manager as a third alternate to serve during the period when there is a vacancy in either the Treasurer or Deputy Treasure position. There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kristina Alfaro, City Treasurer Approved by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein as in the best interests of the City of Cupertino; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby authorize the deposit and withdrawal of the City of Cupertino monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein, and verification by the State Treasurer’s Office of all banking information provided in that regard. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following City of Cupertino officers or their successors in office shall be authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund: Kristina Alfaro Currently vacant/TBD Director of Administrative Services/Treasurer Finance Manager/Deputy Treasurer Signature NA Alternate in case of vacancy in either Treasurer or Deputy Treasurer role: David Brandt City Manager Signature Resolution No. 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of August, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2337 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/6/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: 2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks Project, Project No. 2017-112 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Bid Summary B - Draft Contract Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject:2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs,Gutters and Sidewalks Project,Project No.2017- 112 Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a contract with JJR Construction,Inc.,in the amount of $2,648,138 and approve a construction contingency of $250,000,for a total of $2,898,138 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject 2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks Project, Project No. 2017-112 Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a contract with JJR Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,648,138 and approve a construction contingency of $250,000, for a total of $2,898,138. Discussion On July 11, 2017, the City received two bids for the 2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks Project. The concrete improvements to be completed by this project support the annual paving projects by providing on -street accessibility improvements, repairing uplifted sidewalks, and resolving gutter drainage issues on streets scheduled for asphalt improvements. Additionally, this project will perform other concrete repairs at various locations throughout the City. The following is a summary of bids deemed complete: Bidder Bid Amount Engineers Estimate $3M Spencon Construction, Inc. $3,183,635 JJR Construction, Inc. $2,648,138 The lowest responsive bid for this project is 11% below the engineers estimate and within the total available budget. The engineers estimate for this project was based upon favorable competitively bid unit costs of a similar project awarded in August 2016. Scheduling the project to start in September and flexibility to complete all work by spring of 2018 was the likely factor in the responsible bid coming in below the estimate. JJR Construction, Inc. has satisfactory completed several prior concrete projects for the City. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact Award of the project will result in a fiscal impact of up to $2,898,138. Sufficient funds have been budgeted and are available from account numbers 270-85-820-900-922 (Concrete Maintenance) and 270-85-821-900-921 (Street Pavement Maintenance). _____________________________________ Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Bid Summary B - Draft Contract Bid Results 2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks A One CY YD to Six CU YD Unit Est Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Unit Cost Total Cost 1. Remove and Replace Sidewalk SF 10000 $11.00 $110,000.00 $13.00 $130,000.00 2.1 Remove and Replace Driveway (detached sidewalk)SF 4200 $14.00 $58,800.00 $13.65 $57,330.00 2.2 Remove and Replace driveway (monolithic sidewalk)SF 4400 $14.00 $61,600.00 $13.65 $60,060.00 3. Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter Detail 1-16 Type A2-6 LF 1000 $52.75 $52,750.00 $66.25 $66,250.00 4. Remove and Replace Rolled Curb and Gutter Detail 1-16 Type E LF 600 $52.75 $31,650.00 $66.25 $39,750.00 B Over 6 CU YD 1. Remove and Replace Sidewalk SF 43300 $11.00 $476,300.00 $13.00 $562,900.00 2.1 Remove and Replace Driveway (detached sidewalk)SF 12500 $14.00 $175,000.00 $13.65 $170,625.00 2.2 Remove and Replace driveway (monolithic sidewalk)SF 7400 $14.00 $103,600.00 $13.65 $101,010.00 3. Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter Detail 1-16 A2-6 LF 7000 $52.75 $369,250.00 $66.25 $463,750.00 4. Remove and Replace Rolled Curb and Gutter Detail 1-16 Type E LF 3000 $52.75 $158,250.00 $66.25 $198,750.00 C All Categories and Locations 1. Remove Park Strip Improvements SF 22668 $3.00 $68,004.00 $5.00 $113,340.00 2. Remove Median Island Flatwork SF 100 $10.00 $1,000.00 $8.00 $800.00 3. Valley Gutter SF 3300 $19.85 $65,505.00 $20.00 $66,000.00 4A. Depressed Curb Ramp (Caltrans Type A)EA 15 $2,863.00 $42,945.00 $4,200.00 $63,000.00 4B. Depressed Curb Ramp (Caltrans Type B)EA 51 $3,589.00 $183,039.00 $4,200.00 $214,200.00 4C. Depressed Curb Ramp (Caltrans Type C)EA 78 $3,116.00 $243,048.00 $4,200.00 $327,600.00 4D. Depressed Curb Ramp (Caltrans Type D)EA 2 $2,863.00 $5,726.00 $4,200.00 $8,400.00 4E. Depressed Curb Ramp (Caltrans Type E)EA 2 $2,863.00 $5,726.00 $4,200.00 $8,400.00 4F. Depressed Curb Ramp (Caltrans Type F)EA 59 $2,200.00 $129,800.00 $3,000.00 $177,000.00 4G. Depressed Curb Ramp (Caltrans Type G)EA 15 $2,863.00 $42,945.00 $3,000.00 $45,000.00 5. Upgrade Existing Curb Ramps EA 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 $585.00 $1,170.00 6. Root Barrier EA 30 $250.00 $7,500.00 $100.00 $3,000.00 7. Retaining Curb LF 2600 $12.00 $31,200.00 $18.00 $46,800.00 8. Reconstruction of Catch Basin Top EA 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 9. Asphalt Replacement TN 700 $315.00 $220,500.00 $365.00 $255,500.00 Spencon Construction $3,183,635.00$2,648,138.00 JJR Construction Project No. 2017-112 City of Cupertino 00520 - 1 Contract 2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks DOCUMENT 00520 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, dated this ___ day of , 2017, by and between _________________, whose place of business is located at ___________________________ (“Contractor”), and the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (“City”) acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in the City by the laws of the State of California. WHEREAS, City, on the ___ day of _____, 2016 awarded to Contractor the following Project: PROJECT NUMBER 2017-112 2017/18 RECONSTRUCTION OF CURBS, GUTTERS, AND SIDEWALKS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and City agree as follows: Article 1. Work 1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Specifications, Drawings, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. Article 2. Agency and Notices to City 2.1 City has designated Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works, to act as City’s Authorized Representative(s), who will represent City in performing City’s duties and responsibilities and exercising City’s rights and authorities in Contract Documents. City may change the individual(s) acting as City’s Authorized Representative(s), or delegate one or more specific functions to one or more specific City’s Representatives, including without limitation engineering, architectural, inspection and general administrative functions, at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. Each City’s Representative is the beneficiary of all Contractor obligations to City, including without limitation, all releases and indemnities. 2.2 All notices or demands to City under the Contract Documents shal l be to City’s Authorized Representative at: 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 or to such other person(s) and address (es) as City shall provide to Contractor. Article 3. Contract Time and Liquidated Damages 3.1 Contract Time. The Contract Time will commence to run on the date indicated in the Notice to Proceed. City may give a Notice to Proceed at any time within 30 Days after the Notice of Award. Contractor shall not do any Work at the Site prior to the date on which the Contract Time commences to run. Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work and be ready for Final Payment in accordance with Section 00700 (General Provisions) by June 30, 2017 as provided in Document 00700 (General Provisions) 3.2 Liquidated Damages. City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Contract and that City will suffer financial loss in the form of contract administration expenses (such as project management and consultant expenses), if all or Project No. 2017-001 City of Cupertino 00520 - 2 Contract 2016/17 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks any part of the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Consistent with Document 00700 (General Provisions), Contractor and City agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of actual damages incurred by City because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Accordingly, City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay C ity: 3.2.1 $500 for each Calendar Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work as specified above. 3.2.2 $75 per Calendar Day for failure to remove concrete from a work area within the same calendar week. 3.2.3 $75 per Calendar Day for failure to replace asphalt to finish grade within 30 calendar days. Liquidated damages shall apply cumulatively and, except as provided below, shall be presumed to be the damages suffered by City resulting from delay in completion of the Work. 3.3 Liquidated damages for delay shall only cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by City as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from City (for example, delay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof. Article 4. Contract Sum 4.1 City shall pay Contractor the Contract Sum for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto: See Exhibit “A” attached Article 5. Contractor’s Representations In order to induce City to enter into this Contract, Contractor makes the following representations and warranties: 5.1 Contractor has visited the Site and has examined thoroughly and understood the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work, Site, locality, actual conditions, as -built conditions, and all local conditions, and federal, state and local laws and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. 5.2 Contractor has examined thoroughly and understood all reports of e xploration and tests of subsurface conditions, as-built drawings, drawings, products specifications or reports, available for Bidding purposes, of physical conditions, including Underground Facilities, or which may appear in the Drawings. Contractor accepts the determination set forth in these Documents and Document 00700 (General Provisions) of the limited extent of the information contained in such materials upon which Contractor may be entitled to rely. Contractor agrees that except for the information so identified, Contractor does not and shall not rely on any other information contained in such reports and drawings. 5.3 Contractor has conducted or obtained and has understood all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in Section 5.2 of this Document 00520) that pertain to the subsurface conditions, as-built conditions, underground facilities, and all other physical conditions at or contiguous to the Site or otherwise that may affect the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work, as Contractor considers necessary for the performance or furnishing of Work at the Contract Sum, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Con tract Documents, including specifically the provisions of Document 00700 (General Provisions); and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be required by Contractor for such purposes. Project No. 2017-112 City of Cupertino 00520 - 3 Contract 2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks 5.4 Contractor has correlated its knowledge and the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 5.5 Contractor has given City prompt written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that it has discovered in or among the Contract Documents and as -built drawings and actual conditions and the written resolution thereof through Addenda issued by City is acceptable to Contractor. 5.6 Contractor is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law, and is duly qualified to conduct business in the State of California. 5.7 Contractor has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Con tract, the other Contract Documents and the Work to be performed herein. The Contract Documents do not violate or create a default under any instrument, contract, order or decree binding on Contractor. 5.8 Contractor has listed Subcontractors pursuant to the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. in document 00340 (Subcontractors List) Article 6. Contract Documents 6.1 Contract Documents consist of the following documents, including all changes, addenda, and modifications thereto: Document 00002 Signature Page Document 00003 Project Directory Document 00012 Caltrans/City Cross-Reference Table Document 00100 Advertisement For Bids Document 00200 Instructions to Bidders Document 00210 Indemnity and Release Agreement Document 00400 Bid Form Document 00411 Bond Accompanying Bid Document 00430 Subcontractors List Document 00450 Statement of Qualifications Document 00481 Non-Collusion Affidavit Document 00482 Bidder Certifications Document 00520 Contract Document 00530 Insurance Forms Document 00610 Construction Performance Bond Document 00620 Construction Labor and Material Payment Bond Document 00630 Guaranty Document 00650 Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims Document 00660 Substitution Request Form Document 00700 General Conditions Document 00800 Special Conditions Document 00820 Traffic Control Requirements Document 00821 Insurance Document 00822 Apprenticeship Program Document 01010Technical Specifications Addenda(s) Drawings/Plans 6.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in this Document 00520, Article 6. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented as provided in Document 00700 (General Provisions). Project No. 2017-001 City of Cupertino 00520 - 4 Contract 2016/17 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks Article 7. Miscellaneous 7.1 Terms used in this Contract are defined in Document 00700 (General Provisions) and will have the meaning indicated therein. 7.2 It is understood and agreed that in no instance are the persons signing this Contract for or on behalf of City or acting as an employee, agent, or representative of City, liable on this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or upon any warranty of authority, or otherwise, and it is further understood and agreed that liability of the City is limited and confined to such liability as authorized or imposed by the Contr act Documents or applicable law. 7.3 Contractor shall not assign any portion of the Contract Documents, and may subcontract portions of the Contract Documents only in compliance with the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. 7.4 The Contract Sum includes all allowances (if any). 7.5 In entering into a public works contract or a subcontract to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to a public works contract, Contractor or Subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the a warding body all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the public works contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor, without further ackno wledgment by the parties. 7.6 Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are deemed included in the Contract Documents and on file at City’s office, or may be obtained of the State of California web site http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/Northern.html and shall be made available to any interested party on request. Pursuant to Section 1861 of the Labor Code, Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self -insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of the Contract Documents. 7.7 Should any part, term or provision of this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or any document re quired herein or therein to be executed or delivered, be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby. If the provisions of any law causing such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability may be waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Contract and the Contract Documents may be deemed valid and binding contracts, enforceable in accordance with their terms t o the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. In the event any provision not otherwise included in the Contract Documents is required to be included by any applicable law, that provision is deemed included herein by this reference(or, if such provisi on is required to be included in any particular portion of the Contract Documents, that provision is deemed included in that portion). 7.8 This Contract and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and governed in all respects by California law (excluding choice of law rules). The exclusive venue for all disputes or litigation hereunder shall be in Santa Clara County. Both parties hereby waive their rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394 to file a motion to transfer any action or proceeding arising out of the Contract Documents to another venue. Contractor accepts the Claims Procedure in Document 00700, Article 12, established under the California Government Code, Title 1, Division 3.6, Part 3, Chapter 5. Project No. 2017-112 City of Cupertino 00520 - 5 Contract 2017/18 Reconstruction of Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Contract in triplicate the day and year first above written. 2016/17 RECONSTRUCTION OF CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS CITY: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California By: [Signature] Attest: [Please print name here] City Clerk: Grace Schmidt Approved as to form by City Attorney: Title: ______________________________________________ [If Corporation: Chairman , President, or Vice President] City Attorney: Randolph Hom By: I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that Timm Borden, Director of Public Works of the City of Cupertino was duly authorized to execute this document. [Signature] [Please print name here] Title: [If Corporation: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or Assistant Treasurer] Dated: _____________________________ David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California ________________________________________________ State Contractor’s License No. Classification ________________________________________________ Expiration Date Designated Representative: Taxpayer ID No._________________________________ Name: Roger Lee Name: Title: Assistant Director of Public Works Title: Address: 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014 Address: Phone: 408-777-3350 Phone: Facsimile: 408-777-3333 Facsimile: AMOUNT: ACCOUNT NUMBER: 270-85-820-900-922 FILE NO.: NOTARY ACKNOLEDGEMENT IS REQUIRED. IF A CORPORATION, CORPORATE SEAL AND CORPORATE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDEMENT AND FEDERAL TAX ID ARE REQUIRED. IF NOT A CORPORATION SOCIAL SECURITY NO. IS REQUIRED END OF DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2403 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:3/2/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: 2017 Pavement Maintenance Project Phase 3, City Project No. 2017-111 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Contract Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: 2017 Pavement Maintenance Project Phase 3, City Project No. 2017-111 Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to O’Grady Paving,Inc.,in the amount of $2,250,943.75;and approve a construction contingency of $249,056.25 for a total of $2,500,000 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject 2017 Pavement Maintenance Project Phase 3, City Project No. 2017-111. Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to O’Grady Paving, Inc., in the amount of $2,250,943.75; and approve a construction contingency of $249,056.25 for a total of $2,500,000. Discussion On June 27, 2017, the City received bids for the 2017 Pavement Maintenance Project Phase 3. This project will complete a rubberized asphalt overlay on Stevens Creek & De Anza Boulevards. The limit of work on Stevens Creek Boulevard is from Wolfe Road to the Santa Clara limits; work on De Anza Boulevard starts from Stevens Creek Boulevard south to Bollinger Road and then from Highway 85 south to Prospect Road. Work is expected to start in September. The rubberized asphalt material to be used on this project contains recycled tire rubber. Compared to conventional asphalt, this product is environmentally preferred due to its superior structural qualities that allow less of the material to be applied, its durability and ability to resist cracking, and its effectiveness in reducing vehicle noise pollution. For each lane mile of asphalt rubber, approximately 2,000 tires are recycled—which equates to 26,080 tires being diverted from a landfill because of this project. A total of 4 companies submitted bid packages for this proje ct. The following is a summary of bids deemed complete: Bidder Bid Amount Engineers Estimate $2,300,000 O’Grady Paving 2,250,943.75 G. Bortolotto Co. 2,429,397.39 Interstate Grading & Paving 2,447,348.00 Granite Rock 2,719,002.95 Fiscal Impact Award of the project will result in a fiscal impact of up to $2,500,000. Sufficient funds have been budgeted and are available from account #270-85-821-900-921 (Pavement Maintenance). _____________________________________ Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft Contract Project No. 2017-111 City of Cupertino 00520 - 1 Contract 2017 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 DOCUMENT 00520 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, dated this day of , 20 ___ , by and between ________________________ [Name of Contractor] whose place of business is located at __________________________________________________________, ____________________ [Address of Contractor] (“Contractor”), and the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (“City”) acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in the Ci ty by the laws of the State of California. WHEREAS, City, on the _____ day of _______________, 20___ awarded to Contractor the following Project: PROJECT NUMBER 2017-111 2017 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PHASE 3 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and City agree as follows: Article 1. Work 1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Specifications, Drawings, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. Article 2. Agency and Notices to City 2.1 City has designated ______________________________________ to act as City’s Authorized Representative(s), who will represent City in performing City’s duties and responsibilities and exercising City’s rights and authorities in Contract Documents. City may change the individual(s) acting as City’s Authorized Representative(s), or delegate one or more specific functions to one or more specific City’s Representatives, including without limitation engineering, architectural, inspection and general administrative functions, at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. Each City’s Representative is the beneficiary of all Contractor obligations to City, including without limitation, all releases and indemnities. 2.2 City has designated ______________________Consultant. City may change the identity of the Consultant at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. 2.3 City has designated _______________ to act as Construction Managers. City may change the identity of the Construction Manager at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. 2.4 All notices or demands to City under the Contract Documents shall be to City’s Authorized Representative at: 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 or to such other person(s) and address(es) as City shall provide to Contractor. Article 3. Contract Time and Liquidated Damages 3.1 Contract Time. The Contract Time will commence to run on the date indicated in the Notice to Proceed. City may give a Notice to Proceed at any time within 30 Days after the Notice of Award. Contractor shall not do any Work at the Site prior to the date on which the Contract Time commences to run. Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work and be ready for Final Payment in accordance with Section 00700 (General Conditions) within 60 working days. All work shall be complete by December 1, 2017. Project No. 2017-111 City of Cupertino 00520 - 2 Contract 2017 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 3.2 Liquidated Damages. City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of t his Contract and that City will suffer financial loss in the form of contract administration expenses (such as project management and consultant expenses), if all or any part of the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Consistent with Document 00700 (General Conditions), Contractor and City agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of actual damages incurred by City because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Accordingly, City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay City: 3.2.1 $5,000 per Calendar Day per location for failure to place temporary markers prior to opening asphalt areas to traffic. 3.2.2 $1,000 per Calendar Day per street for failure to install permanent striping within 21 calendar days. 3.2.3 $100 per Calendar day for each traffic signal loop not replaced within two weeks followi ng the damage. 3.2.4 $250 per location per day for failure to adjust utilities to finish grade within 72 hours of final paving. 3.2.5 $3,000 for each occurrence of a violation of Document 00800, Section 1.7 WORK DAYS AND HOURS. 3.2.6 Three Months Salary for each Key Personnel named in Contractor’s SOQ pursuant to Article 2.G of Document 00450 (Statement of Qualifications for Construction Work) who leaves the Project and/or Contractor replaces at any point before Final Completion, for any reason whatsoever, that Contractor can demonstrate to City’s satisfaction is beyond Contractor’s control. Liquidated damages shall apply cumulatively and, except as provided below, shall be presumed to be the damages suffered by City resulting from delay in completion of the Work. Contractor should be aware that California Department of Fish and Game, and other State and Federal agencies, may also levy fines and penalties for the harming, harassing or killing of protected wildlife and endangered species. Contractor hereby agrees to become familiar with and adhere to wildlife and endangered species protection requirements. 3.3 Liquidated damages for delay shall only cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by City as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from City (for example, d elay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof. Article 4. Contract Sum 4.1 City shall pay Contractor the Contract Sum for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto: See Exhibit “A” attached x Article 5. Contractor’s Representations In order to induce City to enter into this Contract, Contractor makes the following representations and warranties: 5.1 Contractor has visited the Site and has examined thoroughly and understood the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work, Site, locality, actual conditions, as -built conditions, and all local conditions, and federal, state and local laws and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or Project No. 2017-111 City of Cupertino 00520 - 3 Contract 2017 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 furnishing of Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. 5.2 Contractor has examined thoroughly and understood all reports of exploration and tests of subsurface conditions, as-built drawings, drawings, products specifications or reports, available for Bidding purposes, of physical conditions, including Underground Facilities, which are identified in Document 00320 (Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Materials Surveys and Existing Conditions), or which may appear in the Drawings. Contractor accepts the determination set forth in these Documents and Document 00700 (General Co nditions) of the limited extent of the information contained in such materials upon which Contractor may be entitled to rely. Contractor agrees that except for the information so identified, Contractor does not and shall not rely on any other information contained in such reports and drawings. 5.3 Contractor has conducted or obtained and has understood all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in Section 5.2 of this Document 00520) that pertain to the subsurface conditions, as-built conditions, underground facilities, and all other physical conditions at or contiguous to the Site or otherwise that may affect the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work, as Contractor considers necessary for the performance or furnishing of Work at the Contract Sum, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the provisions of Document 00700 (Genera l Conditions); and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be required by Contractor for such purposes. 5.4 Contractor has correlated its knowledge and the results of all suc h observations, examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 5.5 Contractor has given City prompt written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that it has discovered in or among the Contract Documents and as -built drawings and actual conditions and the written resolution thereof through Addenda issued by City is acceptable to Contractor. 5.6 Contractor is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law, and is duly qualified to conduct business in the State of California. 5.7 Contractor has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Contract, the other Contract Documents and the Work to be performed herein. The Co ntract Documents do not violate or create a default under any instrument, contract, order or decree binding on Contractor. 5.8 Contractor has listed Subcontractors pursuant to the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. in document 00340 (Subcontractors List) Article 6. Contract Documents 6.1 Contract Documents consist of the following documents, including all changes, addenda, and modifications thereto: Document 00400 Bid Form Document 00430 Subcontractors List Document 00450 Statement of Qualifications Document 00481 Non-Collusion Affidavit Document 00482 Bidder Certifications Document 00510 Notice of Award Document 00520 Contract Document 00530 Insurance Forms Document 00550 Notice to Proceed Document 00610 Construction Performance Bond Document 00620 Construction Labor and Material Payment Bond Document 00630 Guaranty Document 00650 Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims Project No. 2017-111 City of Cupertino 00520 - 4 Contract 2017 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 Document 00660 Substitution Request Form Document 00680 Escrow Agreement for Security Deposit in Lieu of Retention Document 00700 General Conditions Document 00800 Special Conditions Document 00820 Special Environmental Conditions Document 00821 Insurance Document 00822 Apprenticeship Program Technical Specification/Special Provisions Addenda(s) Drawings/Plans 6.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in this Document 00520, Article 6. Document 00320 (Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Material Surveys and Existing Conditions), and the information supplied therein, are not Contract Documents. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented as provided in Document 00700 (General Conditions). Article 7. Miscellaneous 7.1 Terms used in this Contract are defined in Document 00700 (General Conditions) and will have the meaning indicated therein. 7.2 It is understood and agreed that in no instance are the persons signing this Contract for or on behalf of City or acting as an employee, agent, or representative of City, liable on this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or upon any warranty of authority, or otherwise, and it is further understood and agreed that liability of the City is limited and confined to such liability as authorized or imposed by the Contract Documents or applicable law. 7.3 Contractor shall not assign any portion of the Contract Documents, and may subcontract portions of the Contract Documents only in compliance with the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. 7.4 The Contract Sum includes all allowances (if any). 7.5 In entering into a public works contract or a subcontract to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to a public works contract, Contractor or Subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the awarding body all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, servic es or materials pursuant to the public works contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor, without further acknowledgment by the parties. 7.6 Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are deemed included in the Contract Documents and on fil e at City’s office, or may be obtained of the State of California web site http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/Northern.html and shall be made available to any interested party on request. Pursuant to Section 1861 of the Labor Code, Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self -insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of the Contract Documents. 7.7 Should any part, term or provision of this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or any document required herein or therein to be executed or delivered, b e declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby. If the provisions of any law causing such invalidity, illegality o r unenforceability may be waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Contract and the Contract Documents may be deemed valid and binding contracts, enforceable in accordance with their terms to the greatest extent permitted by applicable Project No. 2017-111 City of Cupertino 00520 - 5 Contract 2017 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 law. In the event any provision not otherwise included in the Contract Documents is required to be included by any applicable law, that provision is deemed included herein by this reference(or, if such provision is required to be included in any particular portion of the Contract Documents, that provision is deemed included in that portion). 7.8 This Contract and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and governed in all respects by California law (excluding choice of law rules). The exclusive venue for all disputes or litigation hereunder shall be in Santa Clara County. Both parties hereby waive their rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394 to file a motion to transfer a ny action or proceeding arising out of the Contract Documents to another venue. Contractor accepts the Claims Procedure in Document 00700, Article 12, established under the California Government Code, Title 1, Division 3.6, Part 3, Chapter 5. Project No. 2017-111 City of Cupertino 00520 - 6 Contract 2017 Pavement Maintenance Phase 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Contract in duplicate the day and year first above written. 2017 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PHASE 3 CITY: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California [_Contractor’s name_] By: [Signature] Attest: [Please print name here] City Clerk: Grace Schmidt Approved as to form by City Attorney: Title: ______________________________________________ [If Corporation: Chairman , President, or Vice President] City Attorney: Randolph Stevenson Hom By: I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino was duly authorized to execute this document on behalf of the City of Cupertino. [Signature] [Please print name here] Title: [If Corporation: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or Assistant Treasurer] Dated: _____________________________ David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California ________________________________________________ State Contractor’s License No. Classification ________________________________________________ Expiration Date Designated Representative: Taxpayer ID No._________________________________ Name: Timm Borden Name: Title: Director of Public Works Title: Address: 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014 Address: Phone: 408-777-3354 Phone: Facsimile: 408-777-3333 Facsimile: AMOUNT: $ ACCOUNT NUMBER: FILE NO.: NOTARY ACKNOLEDGEMENT IS REQUIRED. IF A CORPORATION, CORPORATE SEAL AND CORPORATE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDEMENT AND FEDERAL TAX ID ARE REQUIRED. IF NOT A CORPORATION SOCIAL SECURITY NO. IS REQUIRED END OF DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2794 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/12/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Award of the Storm Drain Improvements - Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road Project Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Contract Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject:Award of the Storm Drain Improvements -Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road Project Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to Con-Quest Contractors Inc.,in the amount of $1,089,715 and approve a construction contingency of $200,000, for a total of $1,289,715 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject Award of the Storm Drain Improvements – Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road Project. Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to Con-Quest Contractors Inc., in the amount of $1,089,715 and approve a construction contingency of $200,000, for a total of $1,289,715. Discussion On June 6, 2017, the City received one bid for the Storm Drain Improvements – Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road Project. Review of the bid determined that the bidder did not meet some requirements and the bid was rejected. The project was re-advertised on June 16 with no substantial changes and no bids were received on the bid opening date of July 6, 2017. When no bids are received, City ordinance (Chapter 3.23.110) and California Public Contract Code (Section 22038) allow the City to negotiate directly with a contractor without further formal bidding procedures. As the scope of this project includes work that is desired to be complete prior to the upcoming wet season, staff successfully negotiated a price with a reputable contractor 0.16% below the engineers estimate. Con-Quest successfully completed the Bubb Road/Elm Court Storm Drain Project for the City in 2015. This project provides for storm drain improvements for a high priority master-planned storm drain project located at Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road. The following is a summary of the bid events: Bidder 6/13/17 Bid Amount 7/6/17 Bid Amount Negotiated Amount Cratus, Inc. $1,057,354 (non responsive) Did not submit _ Con-Quest Bid not accepted (arrived late) Did not submit $1,089,715 Engineers Estimate $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 2 City storm drain work will begin on Cupertino Road by late September and is scheduled for completion in the month of November. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact The capital improvement budget is adequately funded to construct the Storm Drain Project – Foothill Boulevard and Cupertino Road. No additional appropriation is needed. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Contract Project No. 2017-10 Storm Drain Improvements 00520 - 1 Contract Foothill Blvd & Cupertino Rd-Rebid DOCUMENT 00520 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, dated this day of , 2017, by and between CON-QUEST CONTRACTORS, INC. whose place of business is located at 290 Toland Street, San Francisco, CA 94124 (“Contractor”), and the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (“City”) acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in the City by the laws of the State of California. WHEREAS, City, on the 1st day of August, 2017 awarded to Contractor the following Project: PROJECT NUMBER 2017-10 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS- FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND CUPERTINO ROAD-REBID NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and City agree as follows: Article 1. Work 1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Specifications, Drawings, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. Article 2. Agency and Notices to City 2.1 City has designated John Raaymakers, to act as City’s Authorized Representative(s), who will represent City in performing City’s duties and responsibilities and exercising City’s rights and authorities in Contract Documents. City may change the individual(s) acting as City’s Authorized Representative(s), or delegate one or more specific functions to one or more specific City’s Representatives, including without limitation engineering, architectural, inspection and general administrative functions, at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. Each City’s Representative is the beneficiary of all Contractor obligations to City, including without limitation, all releases and indemnities. 2.2 City has designated Pakpour Consulting Group, Inc. as the Design Consultant. City may change the identity of the Design Consultant at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. 2.3 City has designated CSG Consultants, Inc. to act as Construction Managers. City may change the identity of the Construction Manager at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. 2.4 All notices or demands to City under the Contract Documents shall be to City’s Authorized Representative at: 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 or to such other pers on(s) and address(es) as City shall provide to Contractor. Article 3. Contract Time and Liquidated Damages 3.1 Contract Time. The Contract Time will commence to run on the date indicated in the Notice to Proceed. City may give a Notice to Proceed at any time within 30 Days after the Notice of Award. Contractor shall not do any Work at the Site prior to the date on which the Contract Time commences to run. Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work and be ready for Final Payment in accordance with Section 00700 (General Conditions) by 100 calendar days following the effective date of the Notice to Proceed. Project No. 2017-10 Storm Drain Improvements 00520 - 2 Contract Foothill Blvd & Cupertino Rd-Rebid 3.2 Liquidated Damages. City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Contract and that City will suffer financ ial loss in the form of contract administration expenses (such as project management and consultant expenses), if all or any part of the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Consistent with Document 00700 (General Conditions), Contractor and City agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of actual damages incurred by City because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Accordingly, City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay City: 3.2.1 $2,000 for each Calendar Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work as specified above. 3.2.2 $3,000 for each occurrence of a violation of Document 00800, Section 1.7 WORK DAYS AND HOURS. 3.2.3 Three Months Salary for each Key Personnel named in Contractor’s SOQ pursuant to Article 2.G of Document 00450 (Statement of Qualifications for Construction Work) who leaves the Project and/or Contractor replaces at any point before Final Completion, for any reason whatsoever, that Contractor can demonstrate to City’s satisfaction is beyond Contractor’s contr ol. Liquidated damages shall apply cumulatively and, except as provided below, shall be presumed to be the damages suffered by City resulting from delay in completion of the Work. Contractor should be aware that California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other State and Federal agencies, may also levy fines and penalties for the harming, harassing or killing of protected wildlife and endangered species. Contractor hereby agrees to become familiar with and adhere to wildlife and endangered species protection requirements. 3.3 Liquidated damages for delay shall only cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by City as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from City (for example, delay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof. Article 4. Contract Sum 4.1 City shall pay Contractor the Contract Sum for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto: See Exhibit “A” attached Article 5. Contractor’s Representations In order to induce City to enter into this Contract, Contractor makes the following representations and warranties: 5.1 Contractor has visited the Site and has examined thoroughly and understood the nature and e xtent of the Contract Documents, Work, Site, locality, actual conditions, as -built conditions, and all local conditions, and federal, state and local laws and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. 5.2 Contractor has examined thoroughly and understood all reports of exp loration and tests of subsurface conditions, as-built drawings, drawings, products specifications or reports, available for Bidding purposes, of physical conditions, including Underground Facilities, which are identified in Document 00320 (Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Materials Surveys and Existing Conditions), or which may appear in the Drawings. Contractor Project No. 2017-10 Storm Drain Improvements 00520 - 3 Contract Foothill Blvd & Cupertino Rd-Rebid accepts the determination set forth in these Documents and Document 00700 (General Conditions) of the limited extent of the information contained in such materials upon which Contractor may be entitled to rely. Contractor agrees that except for the information so identified, Contractor does not and shall not rely on any other information contained in such reports and drawings. 5.3 Contractor has conducted or obtained and has understood all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in Section 5.2 of this Document 00520) that pertain to the subsurface conditions, as-built conditions, underground facilities, and all other physical conditions at or contiguous to the Site or otherwise that may affect the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work, as Contractor considers necessary for the performance or furnishing of Work at the Contract Sum, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the provisions of Document 00700 (General Conditions); and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be required by Contractor for such purposes. 5.4 Contractor has correlated its knowledge and the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 5.5 Contractor has given City prompt written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that it has discovered in or among the Contract Documents and as -built drawings and actual conditions and the written resolution thereof through Addenda issued by City is acceptable to Contractor. 5.6 Contractor is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law, and is duly qualified to conduct business in the State of California. 5.7 Contractor has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Contract, the other Contract Documents and the Work to be performed herein. The Contract Documents do not violate or create a default under any instrument, contract, order or decree binding on Contractor. 5.8 Contractor has listed Subcontractors pursuant to the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. in document 00340 (Subcontractors List) Article 6. Contract Documents 6.1 Contract Documents consist of the following documents, including all changes, addenda, and modifications thereto: Document 00400 Bid Form Document 00430 Subcontractors List Document 00450 Statement of Qualifications Document 00481 Non-Collusion Affidavit Document 00482 Bidder Certifications Document 00510 Notice of Award Document 00520 Contract Document 00530 Insurance Forms Document 00550 Notice to Proceed Document 00610 Construction Performance Bond Document 00620 Construction Labor and Material Payment Bond Document 00630 Guaranty Document 00650 Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims Document 00660 Substitution Request Form Document 00680 Escrow Agreement for Security Deposit in Lieu of Retention Document 00700 General Conditions Document 00800 Special Conditions Document 00820 Special Environmental Conditions Document 00821 Insurance Document 00822 Apprenticeship Program Project No. 2017-10 Storm Drain Improvements 00520 - 4 Contract Foothill Blvd & Cupertino Rd-Rebid Technical Specification/Special Provisions Addenda(s) Drawings/Plans 6.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in this Document 00520, Article 6. Document 00320 (Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Material Surveys and Existing Conditions), and the information supplied therein, are not Contract Documents. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented as provided in Document 00700 (General Conditions). Article 7. Miscellaneous 7.1 Terms used in this Contract are defined in Document 00700 (General Conditions) and will have the meaning indicated therein. 7.2 It is understood and agreed that in no instance are the persons signing this Contract for or on behalf of City or acting as an employee, agent, or representative of City, liable on this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or upon any warranty of authority, or otherwise, and it is further understood and agreed that liability of the City is limited and confined to such liability as authorized or imposed by the Contract Documents or applicable law. 7.3 Contractor shall not assign any portion of the Contract Documents, and may subcontract portions of the Contract Documents only in compliance with the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. 7.4 The Contract Sum includes all allowances (if any). 7.5 In entering into a public works contract or a subcontract to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to a public works contract, Contractor or Subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the awarding body all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Ac t (15 U.S.C. §15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the public works contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor, without further acknowledgment by the parties. 7.6 Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or t ype of worker needed to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are deemed included in the Contract Documents and on file at City’s office, or may be obtained of the State of California web site http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/Northern.html and shall be made available to any interested party on request. Pursuant to Section 1861 of the Labor Code, Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self -insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the W ork of the Contract Documents. 7.7 Should any part, term or provision of this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or any document required herein or therein to be executed or delivered, be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby. If the provisions of any law causing such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability may be waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Contract and the Contract Documents may be deemed valid and binding contracts, enforceable in accordance with their terms to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. In the event any provision not otherwise included in the Contract Do cuments is required to be included by any applicable law, that provision is deemed included herein by this reference(or, if such provision is required to be included in any particular portion of the Contract Documents, that provision is deemed included in that portion). 7.8 This Contract and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and governed in all respects by California law (excluding choice of law rules). The Project No. 2017-10 Storm Drain Improvements 00520 - 5 Contract Foothill Blvd & Cupertino Rd-Rebid exclusive venue for all disputes or litigation hereunder shall be in Santa Clara County. Both parties hereby waive their rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394 to file a motion to transfer any action or proceeding arising out of the Contract Documents to another venue. Contractor accepts the Claims Procedure in Document 00700, Article 12, established under the California Government Code, Title 1, Division 3.6, Part 3, Chapter 5. Project No. 2017-10 Storm Drain Improvements 00520 - 6 Contract Foothill Blvd & Cupertino Rd-Rebid IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Contract in duplicate the day and year first above written. STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS- FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND CUPERTINO ROAD-REBID CITY: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California CON-QUEST CONTRACTORS, INC. By: [Signature] Attest: [Please print name here] City Clerk: Grace Schmidt Approved as to form by City Attorney: Title: ______________________________________________ [If Corporation: Chairman , President, or Vice President] City Attorney: Randolph Stevenson Hom By: I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino was duly authorized to execute this document on behalf of the City of Cupertino. [Signature] [Please print name here] Title: [If Corporation: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or Assistant Treasurer] Dated: _____________________________ David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California ________________________________________________ State Contractor’s License No. Classification ________________________________________________ Expiration Date Designated Representative: Taxpayer ID No._________________________________ Name: Timm Borden Name: Title: Director of Public Works Title: Address: 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014 Address: Phone: 408-777-3354 Phone: Facsimile: 408-777-3333 Facsimile: AMOUNT: $ 1,089,715 ACCOUNT NUMBER: 420-33-042-900-905 SD 004 FILE NO.: 2017-10 NOTARY ACKNOLEDGEMENT IS REQUIRED. IF A CORPORATION, CORPORATE SEAL AND CORPORATE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDEMENT AND FEDERAL TAX ID ARE REQUIRED. IF NOT A CORPORATION SOCIAL SECURITY NO. IS REQUIRED END OF DOCUMENT CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2852 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/25/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project (Project No. 2017-04) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Contract Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject:Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project (Project No. 2017-04) 1.Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project with Aegis ITS,Inc.in the amount of$264,764.33;and 2.Authorize a construction contingency budget of $26,500.00, approximately 10%of the contract amount,to address unforeseen conditions during construction, for a total of $291,264.33 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT August 1, 2017 Subject Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project (Project No. 2017-04). Recommended Action 1. Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project with Aegis ITS, Inc. in the amount of $264,764.33; and 2. Authorize a construction contingency budget of $26,500.00, approximately 10% of the contract amount, to address unforeseen conditions during construction, for a total of $291,264.33. Description The recommended project will construct an extension of the City’s fiber optic communications network along Mary Avenue from the Cupertino Senior Center to the Cupertino Service Center. Discussion The installation of a fiber optic cable between the two City facilities will enhance Cupertino’s communication system by adding substantial bandwidth and provide a secure, reliable connection that will support current and future functions of the Service Center, including data-intensive geographical information systems that support the management of all City infrastructure assets. The existing communication connections to the Service Center consist of traditional phone lines and commercial internet access. Service Center staff also use radio communications, primarily for field workers. The fiber optic connection to be constructed by the project will provide an additional independent channel of communication, ensuring communication if other systems have failed. The project was advertised for bids on June 16th, 2017 and bids were opened on July 11th, 2017. Two bids were received, with the low bid amount approximately 1% over the engineer’s estimate. The low bid was received from Aegis ITS, Inc. Bidder Bid Amount Engineers Estimate $262,080.00 Aegis ITS, Inc. $264,764.33 Daleo, Inc. $269,105.00 Staff recommends that Council award the contact and authorize the City Manager to execute the construction contract for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project with Aegis ITS. The project is scheduled to begin in August 2017 with completion within 40 calendar days of the start of construction. Sustainability Impact None CEQA Exempt Fiscal Impact The CIP budget for the Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Project (budget unit 420-99-038) is adequate to implement the proposed project. No additional appropriation is needed. _____________________________________ Prepared by: John Raaymakers, Public Works Project Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A-Draft Contract Project No. 2017-04 City of Cupertino 00520 - 1 Contract Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center DOCUMENT 00520 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, dated this day of , 2017, by and between AEGIS ITS, INC., whose place of business is located at 1810 Oakland Road, Suite E, San Jose, CA 95131 (“Contractor”), and the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (“City”) acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in the City by the laws of the State of California. WHEREAS, City, on the _____ day of _______________, 2017 awarded to Contractor the following Project: PROJECT NUMBER 2017-04 FIBER NETWORK EXTENSION TO THE SERVICE CENTER NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and City agree as follows: Article 1. Work 1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Specifications, Drawings, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. Article 2. Agency and Notices to City 2.1 City has designated John Raaymakers, to act as City’s Authorized Representative(s), who will represent City in performing City’s duties and responsibilities and exercising City’s rights and authorities in Contract Documents. City may change the individual(s) acting as City’s Authorized Representative(s), or delegate one or more specific functions to one or more specific City’s Representatives, including without limitation engineering, architectural, inspection and general administrative functions, at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. Each City’s Representative is the beneficiary of all Contractor obligations to City, including without limitation, all releases and indemnities. 2.2 City has designated Kimley Horn as Design Consultant. City may change the identity of the Design Consultant at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. 2.3 All notices or demands to City under the Contract Documents shall be to City’s Authorized Representative at: 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 or to such other person(s) and address(es) as City shall provide to Contractor. Article 3. Contract Time and Liquidated Damages 3.1 Contract Time. The Contract Time will commence to run on the date indicated in the Notice to Proceed. City may give a Notice to Proceed at any time within 30 Days after the Notice of Award. Contractor shall not do any Work at the Site prior to the date on which the Contract Time commences to run. Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work and be ready for Final Payment in accordance with Section 00700 (General Conditions) no later than 40 calendar days following the effective date of the Notice to Proceed. Project No. 2017-04 City of Cupertino 00520 - 2 Contract Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center 3.2 Liquidated Damages. City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Contract and that City will suffer financial loss in the form of contract administration expenses (such as project management and consultant expenses), if all or any part of the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Consistent with Document 00700 (General Conditions), Contractor and City agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of actual damages incurred by City because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Accordingly, City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay City: 3.2.1 $2,000 for each Calendar Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work as specified above. 3.2.2 $3,000 for each occurrence of a violation of Document 00800, Section 1.7 WORK DAYS AND HOURS. 3.2.3 Three Months Salary for each Key Personnel named in Contractor’s SOQ pursuant to Article 2.G of Document 00450 (Statement of Qualifications for Construction Work) who leaves the Project and/or Contractor replaces at any point before Final Completion, for any reason whatsoever, that Contractor can demonstrate to City’s satisfaction is beyond Contractor’s control. Liquidated damages shall apply cumulatively and, except as provided below, shall be presumed to be the damages suffered by City resulting from delay in completion of the Work. Contractor should be aware that California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other State and Federal agencies, may also levy fines and penalties for the harming, harassing or killing of protected wildlife and endangered species. Contractor hereby agrees to become familiar with and adhere to wildlife and endangered species protection requirements. 3.3 Liquidated damages for delay shall only cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by City as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from City (for example, delay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof. Article 4. Contract Sum 4.1 City shall pay Contractor the Contract Sum for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto: See Exhibit “A” attached Article 5. Contractor’s Representations In order to induce City to enter into this Contract, Contractor makes the following representations and warranties: 5.1 Contractor has visited the Site and has examined thoroughly and understood the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work, Site, locality, actual conditions, as-built conditions, and all local conditions, and federal, state and local laws and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. 5.2 Contractor has examined thoroughly and understood all reports of exploration and tests of subsurface conditions, as-built drawings, drawings, products specifications or reports, available for Bidding purposes, of physical conditions, including Underground Facilities, which are identified in Document 00320 (Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Materials Surveys and Existing Conditions), or which may appear in the Drawings. Contractor accepts the determination set forth in these Documents and Document 00700 (General Conditions) of the Project No. 2017-04 City of Cupertino 00520 - 3 Contract Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center limited extent of the information contained in such materials upon which Contractor may be entitled to rely. Contractor agrees that except for the information so identified, Contractor does not and shall not rely on any other information contained in such reports and drawings. 5.3 Contractor has conducted or obtained and has understood all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in Section 5.2 of this Document 00520) that pertain to the subsurface conditions, as-built conditions, underground facilities, and all other physical conditions at or contiguous to the Site or otherwise that may affect the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work, as Contractor considers necessary for the performance or furnishing of Work at the Contract Sum, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the provisions of Document 00700 (General Conditions); and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be required by Contractor for such purposes. 5.4 Contractor has correlated its knowledge and the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 5.5 Contractor has given City prompt written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that it has discovered in or among the Contract Documents and as-built drawings and actual conditions and the written resolution thereof through Addenda issued by City is acceptable to Contractor. 5.6 Contractor is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law, and is duly qualified to conduct business in the State of California. 5.7 Contractor has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Contract, the other Contract Documents and the Work to be performed herein. The Contract Documents do not violate or create a default under any instrument, contract, order or decree binding on Contractor. 5.8 Contractor has listed Subcontractors pursuant to the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. in document 00340 (Subcontractors List) Article 6. Contract Documents 6.1 Contract Documents consist of the following documents, including all changes, addenda, and modifications thereto: Document 00400 Bid Form Document 00430 Subcontractors List Document 00450 Statement of Qualifications Document 00481 Non-Collusion Affidavit Document 00482 Bidder Certifications Document 00510 Notice of Award Document 00520 Contract Document 00530 Insurance Forms Document 00550 Notice to Proceed Document 00610 Construction Performance Bond Document 00620 Construction Labor and Material Payment Bond Document 00630 Guaranty Document 00650 Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims Document 00660 Substitution Request Form Document 00680 Escrow Agreement for Security Deposit in Lieu of Retention Document 00700 General Conditions Document 00800 Special Conditions Document 00821 Insurance Document 00822 Apprenticeship Program Technical Specification/Special Provisions Addenda(s) Project No. 2017-04 City of Cupertino 00520 - 4 Contract Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center Drawings/Plans 6.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in this Document 00520, Article 6. Document 00320 (Geotechnical Data, Hazardous Material Surveys and Existing Conditions), and the information supplied therein, are not Contract Documents. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented as provided in Document 00700 (General Conditions). Article 7. Miscellaneous 7.1 Terms used in this Contract are defined in Document 00700 (General Conditions) and will have the meaning indicated therein. 7.2 It is understood and agreed that in no instance are the persons signing this Contract for or on behalf of City or acting as an employee, agent, or representative of City, liable on this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or upon any warranty of authority, or otherwise, and it is further understood and agreed that liability of the City is limited and confined to such liability as authorized or imposed by the Contract Documents or applicable law. 7.3 Contractor shall not assign any portion of the Contract Documents, and may subcontract portions of the Contract Documents only in compliance with the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. 7.4 The Contract Sum includes all allowances (if any). 7.5 In entering into a public works contract or a subcontract to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to a public works contract, Contractor or Subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the awarding body all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the public works contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor, without further acknowledgment by the parties. 7.6 Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are deemed included in the Contract Documents and on file at City’s office, or may be obtained of the State of California web site http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/Northern.html and shall be made available to any interested party on request. Pursuant to Section 1861 of the Labor Code, Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of the Contract Documents. 7.7 Should any part, term or provision of this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or any document required herein or therein to be executed or delivered, be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby. If the provisions of any law causing such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability may be waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Contract and the Contract Documents may be deemed valid and binding contracts, enforceable in accordance with their terms to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. In the event any provision not otherwise included in the Contract Documents is required to be included by any applicable law, that provision is deemed included herein by this reference(or, if such provision is required to be included in any particular portion of the Contract Documents, that provision is deemed included in that portion). 7.8 This Contract and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and governed in all respects by California law (excluding choice of law rules). The exclusive venue for all disputes or litigation hereunder shall be in Santa Clara County. Both parties hereby waive their rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394 to file a motion to transfer any action Project No. 2017-04 City of Cupertino 00520 - 5 Contract Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center or proceeding arising out of the Contract Documents to another venue. Contractor accepts the Claims Procedure in Document 00700, Article 12, established under the California Government Code, Title 1, Division 3.6, Part 3, Chapter 5. Project No. 2017-04 City of Cupertino 00520 - 6 Contract Fiber Network Extension to the Service Center IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Contract in duplicate the day and year first above written. FIBER NETWORK EXTENSION TO THE SERVICE CENTER CITY: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California AEGIS ITS, INC., a California corporation By: [Signature] Attest: [Please print name here] City Clerk: Grace Schmidt Approved as to form by City Attorney: Title: ______________________________________________ [If Corporation: Chairman , President, or Vice President] City Attorney: Randolph Stevenson Hom By: I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino was duly authorized to execute this document on behalf of the City of Cupertino. [Signature] [Please print name here] Title: [If Corporation: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or Assistant Treasurer] Dated: _____________________________ David Brandt, City Manager of the City of Cupertino, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California ________________________________________________ State Contractor’s License No. Classification ________________________________________________ Expiration Date Designated Representative: Taxpayer ID No._________________________________ Name: Timm Borden Name: Title: Director of Public Works Title: Address: 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014 Address: Phone: 408-777-3354 Phone: Facsimile: 408-777-3333 Facsimile: AMOUNT: $ 264,764.33 ACCOUNT NUMBER: 4220-99-038 FILE NO.: 2017-04 NOTARY ACKNOLEDGEMENT IS REQUIRED. IF A CORPORATION, CORPORATE SEAL AND CORPORATE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDEMENT AND FEDERAL TAX ID ARE REQUIRED. IF NOT A CORPORATION SOCIAL SECURITY NO. IS REQUIRED END OF DOCUMENT EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2471 Name: Status:Type:Second Reading of Ordinances Agenda Ready File created:In control:3/27/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Second reading of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to regulate the placement of storage containers and temporary fencing, size of signage notice boards for development, size of Accessory Dwelling Units, and including amendments to various other chapters of Title 19 - Zoning of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to, Chapter 19.08 (Definitions), Chapter 19.28 (Single- Family Residential (R-1) Zones), Chapter 19.36, Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zones, Chapter 19.40 (Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones), Chapter 19.60 (General Commercial (CG) Zones), Chapter 19.64, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones and 19.116 (Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments) for compliance with State Law, readability, clarifications, and internal consistency. (Application No. MCA-2017-03; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Ordinance B - Changes since first reading Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject:Second reading of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to regulate the placement of storage containers and temporary fencing,size of signage notice boards for development,size of Accessory Dwelling Units,and including amendments to various other chapters of Title 19 -Zoning of the Municipal Code,including but not limited to,Chapter 19.08 (Definitions),Chapter 19.28 (Single-Family Residential (R-1)Zones),Chapter 19.36,Multiple- Family Residential (R-3)Zones,Chapter 19.40 (Residential Hillside (RHS)Zones),Chapter 19.60 (General Commercial (CG)Zones),Chapter 19.64,Permitted,Conditional and Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones and 19.116 (Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments)for compliance with State Law,readability,clarifications,and internal consistency.(Application No.MCA-2017-03;Applicant:City of Cupertino;Location: City-wide) Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No.17-2165:“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 9.22,Property Maintenance,Chapter 19.12, Administration,Chapter 19.112,Accessory Dwelling Units In R-1,RHS,A and A-1 Zones,and minor amendments in Chapter 19.08,Definitions,Chapter 19.24,Agricultural (A)and CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:17-2471,Version:1 minor amendments in Chapter 19.08,Definitions,Chapter 19.24,Agricultural (A)and Agricultural-Residential (A-1)Zones,Chapter 19.28,Single-Family Residential (R-1)Zones, Chapter 19.36,Multiple-Family Residential (R-3)Zones,Chapter 19.40,Residential Hillside (RHS)Zones,Chapter 19.60,General Commercial (CG)Zones,Chapter 19.64,Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones And 19.116,Conversions Of Apartment Projects To Common Interest Developments" CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject Second reading of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to regulate the placement of storage containers and temporary fencing, size of signage notice boards for development, size of Accessory Dwelling Units, and including amendments to various other chapters of Title 19 – Zoning of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to, Chapter 19.08 (Definitions), Chapter 19.28 (Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones), Chapter 19.36, Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zones, Chapter 19.40 (Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones), Chapter 19.60 (General Commercial (CG) Zones), Chapter 19.64, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones and 19.116 (Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments) for compliance with State Law, readability, clarifications, and internal consistency. (Application No. MCA-2017-03; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide). Recommended Action Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 17-2165: “An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 9.22, Property Maintenance, Chapter 19.12, Administration, Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units In R-1, RHS, A and A- 1 Zones, and minor amendments in Chapter 19.08, Definitions, Chapter 19.24, Agricultural (A) and Agricultural-Residential (A-1) Zones, Chapter 19.28, Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones, Chapter 19.36, Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zones, Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillside (RHS) Zones, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial (CG) Zones, Chapter 19.64, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial Zones And 19.116, Conversions Of Apartment Projects To Common Interest Developments.” (Attachment A) Discussion Changes introduced by City Council On July 5, 2017 Council introduced and conducted the first reading of ordinance 17-2165 with amendments discussed below. Storage Containers The Council motion at the July 5, 2017 meeting requested staff to draft ordinance language to ensure that a sufficient time elapses between the two (2) occurrences when a storage container may be remain on a site for 15 days. Staff has clarified this to ensure that at least 60 days elapse before a storage container may be brought back on site (See blue text in Attachment B.) In addition, the Council wished to ensure that the total of 30 days that a storage container may remain on site be within any twelve month period, as opposed to the calendar year. This is reflected in the attached ordinance. In addition, the City Council asked staff to propose language allowing the placement of storage containers, when permitted, active and continuous construction occurs on the property: 1. Behind six (6) foot conforming fences as long as they were outside the front and/or street side yard areas and not visible. Staff Comment: Storage containers are allowed to be placed outside the front, side or rear yard areas (generally in areas that are fenced from public view) in accordance with the Accessory Structure ordinance. As a result, no changes are required to the Municipal Code to address this. 2. Closer to the rear and interior side property lines with possibly no setback from these property lines. Staff Comment: Storage containers are generally not fire-rated and therefore, depending on the size of the unit, may be required to have a five (5) foot setback in order to meet Building and Fire Code requirements. Therefore, no changes have been made to the Municipal Code since they continue to be allowed in conformance with the Accessory Structure ordinance, subject to the Building and Fire Code requirements. Size of Accessory Dwelling Units The City Council motion at the July 5, 2017 meeting included a change to the size of Accessory Dwelling Units to require a minimum size of 150 s.f. and allow a maximum size of 10% of net lot area, up to 1,000 s.f, or 50% of the existing living space, whichever is most restrictive. This change is reflected in the attached ordinance and indicated in blue text in Attachment B. Correction In addition to the changes requested by the City Council, a correction has been made to Table 19.40.060. The sub-section on calculating Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (Section 19.40.060 (A)) has been corrected to accurately capture the formula for calculating FAR for Residential Hillside (RHS) properties less than 10,000 s.f. in size. This is indicated in blue text in Attachment B. As previously indicated, the changes to this section of the Municipal Code is for clarification only and the proposed amendments are not intended to change the amount of development that would be allowed on property zoned RHS. Sustainability Impact None. Fiscal Impact None. Next Steps Ordinance No. 17-2165 will go into effect 30 days after the second reading. Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. Ordinance No. 17-2165 B. Document showing redline changes of relevant sections of Municipal Code - 1 - EXHIBIT “A” Draft Ordinance No. 17-2165 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.22, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, CHAPTER 19.12, ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 19.112, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN R- 1, RHS, A AND A-1 ZONES, AND MINOR AMENDMENTS IN CHAPTER 19.08, DEFINITIONS, CHAPTER 19.24, AGRICULTURAL (A) AND AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL (A-1) ZONES, CHAPTER 19.28, SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONES, CHAPTER 19.36, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONES, CHAPTER 19.40, RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RHS) ZONES, CHAPTER 19.60, GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONES, CHAPTER 19.64, PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND EXCLUDED USES IN OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND 19.116, CONVERSIONS OF APARTMENT PROJECTS TO COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS WHEREAS, this Ordinance is determined to be not a project under the requirements of the California Quality Act of 1970, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) in that proposed Ordinance is categorically exempt as there is no potential for this action to cause a significant effect on the environment and/or any project would be exempt under relevant provisions of CEQA guidelines, including, but not limited to Existing Facilities (Sec. 15301), Replacement or Reconstruction (Sec. 15302), or Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Sec. 15303). WHEREAS, the City Council is the decision-making body for this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council before taking action on this Ordinance has reviewed the not a project determination and exemption, and using its independent judgment, determines the Ordinance to be not a project or exempt from CEQA as stated above; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 9.22, of Title 9 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 9.22: PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Section 9.22.010 Purpose. 9.22.020 Unlawful acts. - 2 - 9.22.030 Penalties. 9.22.040 Enforcement of other laws unaffected. 9.22.050 Notice to Franchise Tax Board. 9.22.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the people of the City of Cupertino, and to protect the City’s neighborhoods against blighting and deteriorating influences or conditions that contribute to the downgrading of neighborhood aesthetics and property values by establishing minimum standards, in addition to standards contained in other laws, rules and regulations, for the maintenance of all building exteriors, premises and vacant land. 9.22.020 Unlawful Acts. Except for any property which has a valid permit to maintain such a condition, no owner(s), agent(s) or lessee(s) or other person(s) occupying or having control of any real property (including City property) within the City shall maintain or allow to be maintained any of the following conditions except as allowed in Table 9.22.020: Table 9.22.020 Unlawful Acts In any front, side or rear yard areas visible from a public street or sidewalk A. Storage or placement of any of the following that could be unsightly and/or constitute an attractive nuisance: 1. Household appliances, equipment, machinery, or furniture, other than that designed and used for outdoor activities, including, but not limited to, refrigerators, washing machines, sinks, stoves, heaters, boilers, tanks, or any part of any listed item; Not Allowed in excess of 72 hours 2. Loose materials, including but not limited to, sand dirt, gravel, concrete or any similar materials; Not Allowed, except if screened with temporary construction fencing while permitted, active and continuous, construction is occurring on the property 3. Building materials, including but not limited to, lumber, fixtures, or salvage materials recovered during demolition; Not Allowed, except if screened with temporary construction fencing while permitted, active and continuous, construction is occurring on the property 4. Temporary Fencing; Not Allowed, except while permitted, active and continuous, construction is occurring on the property - 3 - Table 9.22.020 Unlawful Acts In any front, side or rear yard areas visible from a public street or sidewalk 5. Storage Containers and similar items; Not Allowed on more than two (2) occasions in a twelve-month period, and not more than fifteen (15) days on each occasion, separated by at least 60 days. B. An accumulation of: 1. Glass, paper, metal, plastic, or other recyclables Not Allowed 2. Litter, junk, machine parts, scrap material, waste paper, boxes and cartons, packing materials, combustible trash, tires, or vehicle parts; Not Allowed C. Dead, decayed, or diseased trees, weeds, or other vegetation likely to cause a fire or health hazard, an infestation, or a habitat for rodents; Not Allowed D. A lack of adequate landscaping, or groundcover sufficient to prevent blowing dust and erosion; Not Allowed E. Tree stump(s) with a trunk diameter greater than six inches and a height of greater than 2.5 feet. As used herein "tree stump" means the base part of a tree or the trunk protruding above ground in which 90% or more of the foliage or canopy of the tree has been removed. This prohibition applies to all tree stumps in the City including those described in Chapters 14.12 (Street Trees) and in Chapter 14.18 (Protected Trees). Excepted from this prohibition are trees which are pollarded in accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300-2001 standards. Not Allowed F. Maintenance of any structure in a state of substantial deterioration, where such condition would have a tendency to depreciate the aesthetic and property values of surrounding properties, including but not limited to, peeling paint on a façade, broken windows, damaged porches, broken steps, roofs in disrepair, and other such deterioration or disrepair not otherwise constituting a violation; Not Allowed 9.22.030 Penalties. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall upon conviction by guilty of an infraction punishable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.12. - 4 - 9.22.040 Enforcement of Other Laws Unaffected. Nothing in this chapter affects the power of the City or authorized law enforcement officers to prosecute violators of any statute of the State of California or other ordinances of the City (including the provisions of Chapters 1.09 and Section 1.12.030 regarding nuisance abatement.) 9.22.050 Notice to Franchise Tax Board. If a property owner fails to correct a violation relating to substandard housing within six months or the time prescribed in a written notice of violation, whichever is later, the City Manager or his designee may submit a notice of noncompliance to the Franchise Tax Board to prohibit individuals, banks and corporations from claiming deductions for interest, taxes, depreciation or amortization with respect to the substandard housing pursuant to the provisions of Sections 17274 and 24436.5, as applicable, of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION 2. Cupertino Municipal Code section 19.08.030L of Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 is amended by editing the following definition: "Living space" means, for the purposes of Chapter 19.112, Accessory Dwelling Units in R-1, RHS, A and A-1 Zones, the same as that set forth in CA Government Code Section 65852.2(i). SECTION 3. Table 19.20.020 of Section 19.12.030 of Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5 Table 19.12.030: Approval Authority Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative Review Design Review Committee Planning Commission City Council Public Hearing/ Public Meeting/ Comment Period C Noticing/ Noticing Radius D Posted Site Notice Expiration Date E Chapter/ Findings General Plan Amendment Major F - - R F PH CA. Govt. Code 65350-65362 Yes - CA. Govt. Code 65350- 65362 Minor G - - R F PH Yes - Zoning Map Amendments Major F - - R F PH CA. Govt. Code 65853 - 65857 Yes - 19.152.020 Minor G - - R F PH Yes - Zoning Text Amendments - - R F PH CA. Govt. Code 65853 - 65857 - - 19.152.030 Specific Plans - - R F PH CA. Govt. Code 65350-65362 - - 20.04.030 Development Agreements - - R F PH CA. Govt. Code 65867 Yes - 19.144.120 Development Permits Major F, H - - F/R A1/F PM 19.12.110/ 300’ Yes 2 years 19.156.050 Minor G F - A1 A2 PM Yes 2 years Conditional Use Permits Major F, H, I F - A1/F/R A1/A2/F PH CA. Govt. Yes 2 years 19.156.050 - 6 - Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative Review Design Review Committee Planning Commission City Council Public Hearing/ Public Meeting/ Comment Period C Noticing/ Noticing Radius D Posted Site Notice Expiration Date E Chapter/ Findings Minor G, I F - A1/F/R A1/A2/F PH Code 65905 Yes 2 years Temporary F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.160.030 Density Bonus (Residential) R F Based on concurrent application 19.52 Adult-Oriented Commercial Activity (CUP) - R F PH CA. Govt. Code 65905/ 300’ Yes 2 years 19.128.030 & 19.128.040 Architectural and Site Approval Major J F - A1 A2 PM 19.12.110/ Adjacent Yes 2 years 19.168.030 Minor K F - A1 A2 PM Yes 2 years Amendment Major F, H - - F A1 Varies L Depends on permit being amended L Yes 2 years 19.44, 19.144 19.156, 19.164 Minor G F - A1 A2 Varies L Yes 2 years Minor Modification F - A1 A2 - None No 2 years 19.164 Hillside Exception/ Height Exception / Heart of the City Exception I - - F A1 PH 19.12.110/ 300’ Yes 2 years 19.40.080, 19.24.070, 19.136.090 Variance F - A1 A2 PH CA. Govt. Yes 2 years 19.156.060 - 7 - Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative Review Design Review Committee Planning Commission City Council Public Hearing/ Public Meeting/ Comment Period C Noticing/ Noticing Radius D Posted Site Notice Expiration Date E Chapter/ Findings Code 65905 Status of non- conforming Use - - F A1 PH 19.12.110/ 300’ Yes - 19.140.110 Wireless Antennas I F - F/ A1 A2 Varies I Depends on application type Yes 2 years 19.136.090 Signs Permits F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.104 Neon, Reader board & Freeway Oriented Signs I - F F A1 M PM 19.12.110/ 300’ No 1 year 19.104 Programs F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.104 Exceptions I - F - A1 M PM 19.12.110/ Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.104.290 Parking Exceptions I F F A1 A1 L /A2 Varies N 19.12.110/ Adjacent/ 300’ O Yes 1 year 19.124.050 Fence Exceptions - F - A1 L PM 19.12.110/ Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.48.060 Front Yard Interpretation F - A1 A2 PM 19.12.110/ Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.08 R1 Ordinance Permits - 8 - Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative Review Design Review Committee Planning Commission City Council Public Hearing/ Public Meeting/ Comment Period C Noticing/ Noticing Radius D Posted Site Notice Expiration Date E Chapter/ Findings Two-story I F F F/A1 A1 L /A2 Varies I 19.12.110/ Adjacent Yes 1 year 19.28.140 Minor Residential F - A1 A2 CP No 1 year Exceptions I - F - A1 M PM Yes 1 year Protected Trees Tree Removal F - A1 A2 CP Adjacent unless exempt Yes 1 year 14.18.180 Heritage Tree Designation & Removal - - F A1 PM 19.12.110/ 300’ Yes - 14.18 Tree Management Plan F - A1 A2 - None No - 14.18 Retroactive Tree Removal F - A1 A2 - None No - 14.18 Reasonable Accommodation F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year 19.52.050 Extensions P Parking, Fence & Sign Exceptions & Front Yard F - A1 A2 - None No 1 year - 9 - Type of Permit or Decision A, B Administrative Review Design Review Committee Planning Commission City Council Public Hearing/ Public Meeting/ Comment Period C Noticing/ Noticing Radius D Posted Site Notice Expiration Date E Chapter/ Findings Interpretations Neon, Reader board & Freeway Oriented Signs F A1 A2 - None No 1 year Two Story Permits, Minor Residential Permits and Exceptions F A1 A2 - None No 1 year Tree Removals F - A1 A2 - - No 1 year All other projects F - A1 A2 - 19.12.110/ None No 2 years Key: R—Review and recommendation body F — Final decision-making body unless appealed A1 —Appeal Body on first appeal A2 — Appeal body on second appeal PH – Public Hearing PM – Public Meeting CP – Comment Period 10 Notes: A. Permits can be processed concurrently with other applications, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. B. Projects with combined applications shall be processed at the highest level of approval in conformance with Section 19.04.090. C. Public Hearing: Projects types that need noticing pursuant to the CA Government Code; Public Meeting: Project types that need only a mailed notice and no newspaper notices; Comment Period: Project types that need only a mailed notice and do not need a public hearing or public meeting. D. Noticing Radius of an application in a combined application shall correspond to the maximum noticing radius required for any one of the applications. E. Expiration date of an application in a combined application shall correspond to the maximum expiration date allowed for any one of the development applications (not including Subdivision Map Act applications, General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map or Text Amendments.) F. Major General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development Permit application - for more than ten thousand square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or greater than six residential units G. Minor General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Development Permit application - for ten thousand square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, or six or less residential units. H. City Council review for applications with new development greater than fifty thousand square feet of commercial, and/or greater than one hundred thousand square feet of industrial and/or office and/or other non-residential use, and/or greater than fifty residential units. Planning Commission review for all other applications. I. Please see specific zoning district regulations or chapters in this title that apply to the subject property or project for approval authority. J. Major Architectural and Site Approval application - architectural and site approval for all projects that are not a Minor Architectural and Site Approval application. K. Minor Architectural and Site Approval application - single family home in a planned development zoning district, minor building architectural modifications, landscaping, signs and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where review is required and minor modifications of duplex and multi-family buildings. L. Meeting type and noticing are dependent on the underlying permit being modified. M. Appeals of Design Review Committee decisions shall be heard by the City Council. N. Parking Exceptions approved by the Director of Community Development need a comment period. - 11 - Parking Exceptions approved by the Design Review Committee need a public meeting. O. Parking Exceptions in Single-family residential (R1) zones and Duplex (R2) zones need adjacent noticing. All other Parking Exceptions need notices within three hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the subject property. P. Application must be filed prior to expiration date of permit. Permit is extended until decision of the Approval Body on the extension. SECTION 4. Section 19.12.080 of Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.12.080 Application Process Unless otherwise specified in this title, all applications for permits, permit modifications, amendments and other matters pertaining to this Chapter shall be filed with the Director of Community Development with the following: A. An application for permit may be made by the owner of record, his or her agent, lessee(s) of property, or person(s) who have contracted to purchase or lease property contingent upon their ability to acquire the necessary permit under this title and who have written authorization from the property owner to make an application. B. Application shall be made on a form provided by the City, and shall contain the following, unless waived by the Director of Community Development based on the scope of the proposed project: 1. A complete legal description of the subject property and map showing the location of the property for which the permit is sought; 2. A preliminary title report of the subject property; 3. The proposed site development plan indicating: the location of all buildings and structures; the location and types of land uses; paved areas, such as roadways, driveways and walkways; and general landscaping scheme; 4. Architectural drawings of the proposed development, building additions or other structures. Drawings shall indicate building height, colors, materials, window treatment and other architectural features; 5. Maps showing the locations of buildings; 6. Renderings showing building heights and square footages; 7. Maps showing the precise location of roads, streets, alleys and access points; 8. A traffic analysis, if required; 9. A construction plan, - 12 - 10. Any property/development with a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) or Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall provide a letter of approval from said HOA Board or ARB. 11. The Director of Community Development may reasonably require additional information which is pertinent and essential to the application. 12. Zoning Map or Text Amendments shall also include information required per Chapter 19.152. a. Zoning applications for Planned Development Zoning Districts shall also include information required per Section 19.80.040; b. Zoning applications for Multi-Family (R3) Residential shall also include information required per Section 19.36.040; and c. Zoning applications for Residential Single-family Cluster (R1C) initiated by a property owner, or his or her designee, shall also include items identified in Section 19.44.050H. 13. Planned Development Permit and Development Permit applications shall also include information required per Section 19.156.010: 14. Conditional Use Permits and Variances shall also include information required per Section 19.156.020. 15. Density Bonus Permit applications shall also include information required per Section 19.56.060. 16. Conversion of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments applications shall also include information required per Section 19.116.050. 17. Sign Permit Applications should also include information required per Section 19.104.040. C. Application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by City Council resolution, no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant. SECTION 5. Section 19.12.100 of Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.12.100 Decision A. The Approval Authority is granted the authority to make the decision to grant, deny, or impose conditions or restrictions on a permit or other action on a permit as well as to conduct and make any decisions necessary for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. B. Unless postponed or continued with the mutual consent of the Director of Community Development and the applicant and written confirmation from the applicant, a decision shall be rendered: - 13 - 1. No later than sixty (60) days following the date the application is deemed complete and either categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the adoption of a negative declaration or one hundred and eighty (180) days of certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 2. Notwithstanding the above, no later than one hundred and fifty (150) days upon receipt of a complete application for a new personal wireless communication facility or ninety (90) days upon receipt of an application for collocation of a personal wireless communication facility/antennas. SECTION 6. Section 19.12.110 of Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.12.110 Noticing. A. Notice of Public Hearing: Noticing shall be provided in the following manner for applications that need a public hearing: 1. Notice of hearing shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than ten days prior to the date of the hearing as provided in Section 65090 of the California Government Code; 2. The City shall mail written notice by first class mail to: a. Each owner of record of real property within the noticing radius per Section 19.12.030 of the exterior boundary of the property for which the application is made as the owner of record is shown in the last tax assessment roll pursuant to Section 65091 of the California Government Code; b. Owner(s) of subject site or his or her authorized agent c. Project applicant(s) d. Local agencies expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools or other essential facilities or services to the proposed project; e. Any individual or entity that has filed a written request with the City Clerk requesting notification of public hearings 3. If the number of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered pursuant to subsection A2 above is greater than one thousand, in lieu of mailed or delivered notice, the Director may provide published notice as provided in Government Code Section 65091(3). 4. The notice shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the exact address is not known; b. The date on which action on the application will be taken; - 14 - c. A brief description, the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the City, of the proposed project; d. Reference to the application on file for particulars; e. A statement that any interested person, or agent thereof, may contact the city for additional information and/or plans. Typographical and/or publishing errors shall not invalidate the notice nor any City action related to the notice. B. Notice of Public Hearing for Zoning Text Amendments: 1. For amendments to zoning regulations: Notice of such hearing (publication) shall be given in the manner prescribed in Section 19.12.110 A(1) of this chapter. 2. For amendments to permitted uses of real property: Notice (mailing or publication) shall be given pursuant to Sections 19.12.110 A(2) or A(3), as the case may be. C. Notice of Public Meeting: For projects requiring notice of a public meeting, notice shall be mailed in accord with 19.12.110A(2) or A(3), as the case may be, at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting date. D. Notice of Comment Period: For projects requiring notice of a comment period, notice shall be mailed in accord with 19.12.110A(2) and A(5), fourteen calendar days prior to the date of action on the application. 1. For permits issued pursuant to Chapter 19.28, Single Family Residential, the mailed notice shall include a copy of the site plan and elevation plans of the proposed project. 2. For permits issued pursuant to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees, t he mailed notice shall include a copy of the site plan and tree replacement/mitigation plan. E. The City may also give notice of public hearings/public meetings in any other manner it deems necessary or desirable. If the Director of Community Development believes the project may have impacts beyond the range of the mailed notice, particularly on nearby residential areas, the Director, in his or her discretion, may expand noticing beyond the stated requirements in Section 19.12.030. Compliance with the procedures set forth in this section shall constitute a good-faith effort to provide notice, and the failure to provide notice, and the failure of any to receive notice, shall not prevent the City from proceeding with a hearing, meeting or from taking any action nor affect the validity of any action. F. Posted Site Notice: 1. Applicants shall install notice(s) on the subject site that is/are clearly visible and legible from the right-of-way in accord with the requirements of Table 19.12.030. - 15 - a. Applicants must install a site notice in the front yard of the subject site. b. For all applications other than Two Story Permits, Residential Design Review and Tree Removal applications in R1 or R2 zones, if the subject site has more than one property line abutting a street, the applicant may be required to install more than one notice. 2. The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, firmly attached to 5 foot tall posts and: a. For Two Story Permits, Residential Design Review, and Tree Removal applications in R1 or R2 zones, shall be at least 2 feet tall and 3 feet wide. b. For all other applications that need a site notice, shall be at least 4 feet tall and 6 feet wide. 3. The notice shall be placed at least 14 days prior to the decision/public hearing and shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period has passed. 4. The notice shall contain the following: a. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known; b. A brief description of the proposed project, the content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City; c. City contact information for public inquiries; d. A deadline for the submission of public comments; e. If proposing a physical alteration to an existing building or new buildings, at least one of the following visual representations of the proposed project: i. A color perspective drawing or three-dimensional (3-D) photographic simulation of the proposed project, in a size deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development. ii. For Two Story Permits and Residential Design Review applications, a color or black and white perspective drawing or three-dimensional (3-D) photographic simulation of the proposed project, at least 11 inches by 17 inches in size. iii. Visual Representation is not required for applications that do not have a material change in the physical appearance of the property. - 16 - SECTION 7. Section 19.12.180 of Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.12.180 Expiration, Extension and Revocation. A. Expiration. 1. Approval on a permit or variance shall become null and void and of no effect, within the time frame specified in Section 19.12.030 following its issuance, unless a shorter or longer time period is specifically prescribed in th e conditions of permit or variance, unless: a. A building permit is filed and accepted by the City (fees paid and control number issued.) In the event that a building permit expires for any reason, the permit shall become null and void. b. A permit or variance shall be deemed “vested” when actual substantial and continuous activity has taken place upon the land subject to the permit or variance or, in the event of the erection or modification of a structure or structures, when sufficient building activity has occurred and continues to occur in a diligent manner. 2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, if the use for which a conditional use permit was granted and utilized has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more, the permit becomes null and void. 3. Unless a variance or exception has expired pursuant to subsection 1 of this section, it shall continue to exist for the life of the existing structure or such structure as may be constructed pursuant to the approval, unless a different time period is specified in its issuance. A variance or exception from the parking and loading regulations, and a sign exception shall be valid only during the period of continuous operations of the use and/or structure for which the variance or exception was issued. B. Extensions. A permit or variance may, in accord with Section 19.12.030, Approval Authority, be extended for the time frame specified in Section 19.12.030, upon timely submittal of an application with the Director of Community Development prior to expiration. C. Violation. Once a permit or variance is effective, any and all conditions of approval imposed shall become operative, and the violation of any of them constitute a violation of this Code. D. Revocation. 1. Process: In any case where, in the judgment of the Director, substantial evidence indicates that the conditions of a permit or variance have not been implemented, or where the permit or variance is being conducted in a manner detrimental to - 17 - the public health, safety, and welfare, the Director shall set a date for a public hearing before the decision maker granting the original permit or variance, and notice a public hearing in accordance with Section 19.12.110, Noticing, of this code. 2. Findings: A permit may be revoked or modified if any one of the following findings can be made: i. That the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud; ii. That the improvement, use or activity authorized in compliance with the permit had ceased or was suspended for one year or more; iii. That one or more of the conditions of the permit have not been met; or iv. That the owner or occupant of the property is conducting the use or any associated or other use of the property in violation of the law. In the case of revocation of a sign permit, the sign was abandoned for a period of thirty days. SECTION 8. The text prior to Table 19.24.050 in Section 19.24.050 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows: Table 19.24.050 sets forth the rules and regulations pertaining to the development of structures on property zoned Agricultural (A) and Agricultural-Residential (A-1). SECTION 9. The text prior to Table 19.28.070 in Section 19.28.070 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows: Table 19.28.070 sets forth the rules and regulations pertaining to the development of structures on property zoned R1-5, 6, 7.5, 8, 10, 20 etc., and R1-6e in the Single-Family Residential District. SECTION 10. The text prior to Table 19.36.070 in Section 19.36.070 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows: Table 19.36.070 sets forth the rules and regulations pertaining to the development of structures on property zoned multiple-family residential (R-3). SECTION 11. Chapter 19.40.050 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows: 19.40.050 Site Development Regulations. The following guidelines, shown in Table 19.40.050, are a compilation of policies described in the General Plan and are intended to govern the preparation of development plans in RHS zones. All provisions of this section, except subsections A, B - 18 - and C, may be deviated from with a Hillside Exception in accordance with Section 19.40.040 and 19.40.070. Table 19.40.050: Site Development Regulations A. Density 1. Dwelling Unit Density Determined by Appendix F of the General Plan based upon slope density standards described therein. 2. Transfer of density credits Density credits derived from application of a slope density formula to a lot or a group of lots may not be transferred to property outside any approved subdivision or parcel map boundary. B. Minimum Lot Area 1. By zoning district symbol: Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the RHS zoning symbol. Examples: RHS-20: Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet (20 * 1,000 s.f.) RHS-120: Minimum lot size of 120,000 square feet (120 * 1,000 s.f.) RHS-218: Minimum lot size of 218,000 square feet (218 * 1,000 s.f.) 2. For subdivision Minimum lot area shall be in accordance with Appendix F of the General Plan, unless clustered in accordance with Section 18.52.030 (Hillside Subdivisions). The minimum lot area shall be 10,000 square feet for each unit in a clustered subdivision. 3. Subdividable lots Lot size zoning designation shall be assigned at time of subdivision 4. Non-subdividable legally-created, developed lots Shall reflect the existing lot size C. Minimum Lot Width a. 70 feet at front setback line. b. No minimum lot width for lots served by private driveway and which do not adjoin a public street. D. Development on Substandard Lots A Hillside Exception shall be obtained to construct structures or improvements on existing vacant legal lots. E. Site Grading 1. Maximum Grading Quantity a. Cumulative total of 2,500 cubic yards, cut plus fill. Includes: grading for building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas requiring grading. Excludes: basements b. 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 2. Graded Area Shall be limited to the building pad area to the greatest extent possible - 19 - 3. Multiple Driveways Grading quantities shall be divided equally among the participating lots. E.g., two lots sharing a driveway shall divide the driveway grading quantity in half. The divided share will be charged against the grading quantity allowed for that lot development. 4. Flat Yard Area Limited to a maximum of 2,500 square feet, excluding driveways E. Site Grading (Cont.) 5. Soil Erosion and Screening of Cut and Fill Slopes Plan 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. F. Landscaping 1. Tree Planting Plan Shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to: a. Screen the residential structures to the greatest possible extent b. Reintroduce trees on barren slopes which were denuded by prior agricultural activities. Must comply with the Chapter 14.15, Landscaping Ordinance and Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA) requirements 2. Landscape Requirements 3. Installation of Landscape Improvements Must be installed prior to final occupancy unless it is not practicable. If not installed, the applicant shall post a bond, cash or other security to insure installation within an 18 month period from occupancy. 4. Landscape Maintenance All such landscape areas shall be properly maintained in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance. 5. Native Trees Should be integrated into the site design to the greatest extent possible. G. Watercourse Protection 1. Watercourse and Existing Riparian Vegetation Any watercourse identified in Figure HS – 6 in the City's General Plan and its existing riparian vegetation must be shown on all development plans. 2. Setback The setback shall be measured from the top of bank of the watercourses or from existing riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The setback from riparian vegetation will be measured from the drip line perimeter. All new development, including structures, grading and clearing, must be set back as follows. a. Lots < 1 acre 50 feet b. Lots ≥ 1 acre 100 feet H. Development Near Prominent Ridgelines - 20 - 1. New structures Shall not disrupt a 15% site line from a prominent ridge as identified in Appendix A. The fifteen percent site line shall be measured from the top of ridge at the closest point from the structure. 2. Additions to existing structures within the 15% site line of prominent ridgeline May not further encroach into the site line. For example, the addition may not add height or bulk which may increase the disruption to the fifteen percent ridgeline site line. 3. Impractible Clause If (1) and (2) above are not practicable, alternatives may be considered through the exception process. I. Development on Slopes of ≥ 30% Hillside Exception required for all grading, structures and other development > 500 square feet. J. Trail Linkages and Lots Adjoining Public Open Spaces Site Plan 1. Site plan must identify trail linkages as shown in the General Plan Trail Plan, on and adjacent to the site. 2. If a trail linkage is identified across a property being developed, development shall not take place within that area unless approved through the exception process. 3. For lots adjoining Public Open Spaces, driveways and buildings shall be located as far as feasible from the Public Open Space and designed in a manner to minimize impacts on the Public Open Space. K. Views and Privacy It is not the responsibility of City Government to ensure the privacy protection of the building permit applicant or owners of surrounding properties that may be affected by the structure under construction. However, the Director of Community Development may confer with the building permit applicant to discuss alternate means of preventing privacy intrusion and preserving views. 19.40.060 Building Development Regulations. All provisions of this section may be deviated from upon obtaining a Hillside Exception in accordance with Section 19.40.070. Table 19.40.060 sets forth the rules and regulations pertaining to the development of structures on property zoned Residential Hillside (RHS). - 21 - Table 19.40.060: Building Development Regulations A. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1. Maximum Allowable Development a. Net Lot Area < 10,000 square feet Lesser of:  6,500 square feet; or  45% of net lot area times the slope adjustment factor pursuant to Section 19.40.060(A)(2)* * Formula = (0.45 x Net Lot Area) x (Slope Adjustment Factor) b. Net Lot Area ≥ 10,000 square feet Lesser of:  6,500 square feet; or  4,500 square feet plus 59.59 square feet for every 1,000 square feet over 10,000 square of net lot area, times the slope adjustment factor pursuant to Section 19.40.060(A)(2)* *Formula = (4,500 +   Net Lot Area - 10000 1000 (59.59)) x (Slope Adjustment Factor) Average Slope Reduction (1.5 x (Average Slope – 0.1)) 2. Slope Adjustment Factor based on Average Slope of Net Lot Area a. Average Slope ≤ 10% No reduction in allowable floor area Slope Adjustment Factor = 1 < 10% 0% b. Average Slope between 10% and 30% A reduction in allowable floor area by one and one-half percent (1.5%) for each percent of slope over 10 percent. Slope Adjustment Factor = (1 – (1.5 x (Average slope of net lot area – 0.1)) 11% 1.5% 12% 3.0% 13% 4.5% 14% 6.0% 15% 7.5% 16% 9.0% 17% 10.5% 18% 12.0% 19% 13.5% 20% 15.0% 21% 16.5% 22% 18.0% 23% 19.5% 24% 21.0% 25% 22.5% 26% 24.0% 27% 25.5% 28% 27.0% 29% 28.5% c. Average Slope > 30% Allowable floor area shall be reduced by a constant 30 percent Slope Adjustment Factor = (1 – 0.3) 30% 30.0% 22 3. Additional Regulations for Lots Within Clustered Subdivisions where Land is Reserved for Common Open Space a. Lot Area for calculating FAR May count a proportionate share of the reserved private open space to arrive at lot area for purposes of calculating FAR. b. Maximum FAR prior to slope consideration No developable lot in a cluster development can exceed forty-five- percent floor area ratio, prior to applying the slope adjustment factor, when a portion of the private open space is attributed to the lot area for calculating FAR c. Average slope of lot Calculated on the developable lot only. B. Height of Buildings and Structures Limited to 30 feet C. Setbacks First Floor Second Floor Habitable Third Floor (or portions of structures taller than 20 feet) 1. Front-yard a. Slope ≤ 20% 20 feet Driveway and garage must be designed to enable vehicles to park off-street 25 feet 25 feet b. Slope > 20% 10 feet 25 feet 25 feet 2. Side-yard a. Interior Side 10 feet 15 feet 20 feet b. Street Side on Corner Lot 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet 3. Rear-yard 20 feet 25 feet 25 feet D. Second Story Decks and Patios Minimum Setbacks 1. Front Yard - 17 feet 17 feet 2. Side Yard - 15 feet 15 feet 3. Rear Yard - 20 feet 20 feet E. Downhill Facing Elevation 1. Second Story Downhill Facing Wall Plane Offset a. Offset from First Floor Downhill Wall Plane i. Average of 7 feet 6 inches for 75% of the second story downhill facing wall plane shall be setback and - 23 - ii. Not less than five feet. iii. The remaining 25% may not extend past the first story wall plane. b. Multiple Downhill Facing Wall Planes Offset shall apply only the primary setback affected. c. Offset from First Floor Roofed Porches i. Offset may be measured from the outside perimeter of first-story roofed porches. ii. Roof of the porch must match, in pitch and style, the roof of the main structure. iii. Porch must be at least 5 feet in width and extend the length of the wall on which it is located. 2. Maximum Wall Height on Downhill Elevation 15 feet F. Permitted Yard Encroachments 1. Extension of a Legal Non- conforming Wall Plane for structures not located within a prominent ridgeline site line a. Where a building legally constructed according to existing first floor yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required first floor setbacks, one encroaching side of the existing structure may be extended along existing building lines. b. Only one such extension shall be permitted for the life of the building. c. Encroachments into a required yard which are the result of the granting of a variance may not be further extended. d. Further encroachment into a required setback is not allowed. I.e., a non-conforming setback may not be further reduced. e. In no case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. 2. Architectural Features a. May extend into a required yard a distance not exceeding three feet. b. No architectural feature, or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or accessory structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. G. Accessory Structures (including attached patio covers) As allowed by Chapter 19.100, Accessory Buildings/Structures H. Design Standards 1. Building and Roof Forms - 24 - a. Natural Contours Building shall follow as closely as possible the primary natural contour of the lot. b. Building Mass and Roof Pitches The main building mass shall be on the upslope side of the building and the roof pitches shall trend downslope. c. Second Story Dormers Permitted within the second story setbacks as long as they are minor in shape and size. d. Downhill Elevation of main structure Shall have a minimum of four offset building and roof elements to provide varied building forms to produce shadow patterns which reduce the impact of visual mass. e. High Wall Planes Wall planes exceeding one story or 20 feet in height, whichever is more restrictive, shall contain architectural elements in order to provide relief and to break up expansive wall planes. 2. Colors a. Natural Earth Tones All structures on the lot shall use natural earth tone and/or vegetation colors which complement the natural surroundings. Natural earth-tone and vegetation colors include natural hues of brown, green and shades of gray. b. Reflectivity Value Shall not exceed 60 on a flat surface 3. Outdoor Lighting All outdoor lighting shall be identified on the site development plan. a. Tennis Court and Other Recreational Purposes High-intensity lights not permitted. b. Motion-activated Security Lights 1. Shall not exceed 100 watts and 2. Must be shielded to avoid all off-site intrusion. c. Other lighting Must be directed to meet the particular need. I. Geologic and Soils Reports 1. Applicability A geological report prepared by a certified engineering geologist and a soils report prepared by a registered civil engineer qualified in soils mechanics by the State shall be submitted prior to issuance of permits for construction of any building or structure which: a. Is located on property in an RHS zoning district which has been designated by the General Plan to be within a geological hazard area; and b. Where an addition, alteration or repair of an existing building or structure include at least one of the following: i. The improvements include increasing the occupancy capacity - 25 - of the dwelling such as adding a bedroom or secondary unit, or ii. The cost of the completed addition, alteration or repairs will, during any period of twelve months, exceed twenty-five percent of the value of the existing improvements as determined by the building official based on current per foot value of the proposed structure to the existing structure's value on a parcel of property. For the purposes of this section, the value of existing improvements shall be deemed to be the estimated cost to rebuild the improvements in kind, which value shall be determined by the building official. 2. Content of Reports These reports shall contain, in addition to the requirements of Chapter 16.12 of this code, the following: a. All pertinent data, interpretations and evaluations, based upon the most current professionally recognized soils and geologic data; b. The significance of the interpretations and evaluations with respect to the actual development or implementation of the intended land use through identification of any significant geologic problems, critically expansive soils or other unstable soil conditions which if not corrected may lead to structural damage or aggravation of these geologic problems both on-and off-site; c. Recommendations for corrective measures deemed necessary to prevent or significantly mitigate potential damages to the proposed project and adjacent properties or to otherwise insure safe development of the property; d. Recommendations for additional investigations that should be made to insure safe development of the property; e. Any other information deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. 3. Incorporation of Recommendations All building and site plans shall incorporate the above-described corrective measures and must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to building permit issuance. J. Private Roads and Driveways 1. Pavement Width and Design The pavement width and design for a private road or common driveway serving two to five lots and a single-lot driveway shall comply with development standards contained in the Hillside Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 18.52 of this code. - 26 - 2. Reciprocal Ingress/Egress Easement and Reciprocal Maintenance Agreement The property owner for a lot served by a private road or common driveway shall, prior to issuance of building permits, record an appropriate deed restriction guaranteeing the following, to adjoining property owners who utilize the private road or common driveway for the primary access to their lot(s): a. Reciprocal ingress/egress easement, and b. Participation in a reciprocal maintenance agreement. K. Solar Design The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. Variation from the setback or height restrictions of this chapter may be allowed only upon issuance of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit subject to Chapter 19.12. SECTION 10. Row 29 of Table 19.60.030 of Section 19.60.030 in Chapter 19.60.030 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to be read as follows: 19.60.030 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses. Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses that may be conducted from property zoned general commercial (CG), are identified in Table 19.60.030, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in General Commercial Zoning Districts below. Table 19.60.030: Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in General Commercial Zoning Districts Uses CG 29. Automotive service stations, automobile washing facilities CUP - PC SECTION 11. Row 14 of Table 19.64.020 of Section 19.64.020 in Chapter 19.64.020 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.64.020 Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Office and Industrial Zones. Table 19.64.020 sets forth the Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Office and Industrial zones. Table 19.64.020: Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Office and Industrial Zones Uses Zoning Districts OA OP MP ML ML- rc 14. Automotive service stations, automobile washing facilities; - - - CUP - PC - - 27 - SECTION 12. Chapter 19.112.030 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows: 19.112.030 Site Development Regulations. Site Development Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units are as identified in Table 19.112.030. Table 19.112.030: Site Development Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units Attached to Principal Dwelling Unit Detached Conversion of portions of existing structures to an accessory dwelling unit New addition to existing accessory dwelling unit and new accessory dwelling unit A. Size of living space, exclusive of decks 1. Minimum size 150 s.f. 2. Maximum size 10% of the net lot area, up to a maximum of 1,000 s.f., or 50 percent of the existing living space of the principal dwelling unit, whichever is more restrictive. B. Second-story accessory dwelling unit Allowed if the unit: 1. Is a conversion of existing second story portions of the principal dwelling unit; and 2. Complies with applicable landscape requirements to adjoining dwellings consistent with Section 19.28.120 Not allowed C. Parking 1. Parking for accessory dwelling unit None One additional off-street parking space shall be provided, if the principal dwelling unit has less than the minimum off-street parking spaces for the applicable residential zoning district in which it is located, as required in Chapter 19.124 unless the unit meets the following requirements: a. Is within one-half (1/2) mile of a public transit stop; or b. Located in an architecturally and historically significant historic district; or c. Occupant of the ADU is not allowed/offered a required on-street parking permit; or d. Located within one block of a car share vehicle pick-up location. - 28 - Table 19.112.030: Site Development Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units Attached to Principal Dwelling Unit Detached Conversion of portions of existing structures to an accessory dwelling unit New addition to existing accessory dwelling unit and new accessory dwelling unit 2. Replacement parking spaces when new accessory dwelling unit converts existing covered, uncovered or enclosed parking spaces required for the principal dwelling unit a. Replacement spaces must be provided for the principal dwelling unit to meet the minimum off-street parking spaces for the applicable residential zoning district in which it is located, as required in Chapter 19.124. b. Replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including but not limited to covered spaces, uncovered spaces, tandem spaces or by use of mechanical automobile parking lifts. c. Any replacement parking spaces provided must comply with the development regulations for the applicable zoning district in which it is located, Chapter 19.124, Parking and Chapter 19.100, Accessory Buildings/Structures. D. Direct outside access 1. Independent outdoor access must be provided without going through the principal dwelling unit. 2. Where second-story accessory dwelling units are allowed, entry shall not be provided by an exterior staircase. E. Screening from public street All access to accessory dwelling units shall be screened from a public street. SECTION 13. Sections 19.116.030 through 19.116.060 of Chapter 19.116 of Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to be numbered, entitled, and to read as follows: 19.116.030 General Regulations. A. Community Impacts. 1. Residential Displacement. a. i. In no case shall an apartment project be converted to a common interest development unless and until it can reasonably be demonstrated that comparable replacement housing exists within the housing market area to accommodate those residents displaced as a direct result of the proposed conversion. The developer shall provide a relocation/displacement plan which illustrates that sufficient replacement housing is available in the housing market area within a price range which is equal to or is less than twenty-five percent of the household income of the tenants to be displaced, or not to exceed the rent being paid for the existing rental unit to be converted, - 29 - whichever is higher. ii. As used in this section "housing market area" means that area bounded by Fremont Avenue located in the City of Sunnyvale, to the north, Lawrence Expressway to the east, Prospect Road to the south, hence along a line generally following the westerly boundary of the Cupertino Urban Service Area northerly to Highway 280, hence easterly along Highway 280 to Foothill Boulevard, hence northerly along Foothill Boulevard to Homestead Road, hence easterly along Homestead to Highway 85, hence northerly along Highway 85 to Fremont Avenue. b. Replacement housing must be shown to meet any special needs of disabled tenants, which are presently available in the project proposed to be converted, such as facilities for the handicapped, elderly, families with children, and availability of public transportation for the elderly or residents who do not own an automobile. The plan shall also demonstrate that all other provisions relating to tenant protection addressed in the chapter have been fulfilled. c. A developer may meet the above requirements through the provision of mitigating factors to diminish the number and/or aid relocation of, displaced tenants within the project. Such mitigating measures may include, but are not limited to, discounting the price of project units to tenant buyers, offering a moving allowance, extending leases, or providing below-market-rate units. d. Notwithstanding the above provisions, in no case shall an apartment house be converted to a common interest development when the vacancy rate for apartment houses within the housing market area is less than five percent at the time of application and has averaged five percent over the past six months as determined by surveys conducted by the Director of Community Development. 1. Conformity with the General Plan. No conversion of apartment houses to community houses to common interest developments shall be permitted unless and until the City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that the proposed conversion will not conflict with the housing goals and policies of the General Plan and will not adversely impact the local school system. 2. Prohibition of Discriminating Against Prospective Buyers with Children. In no case shall a common interest development which has been converted, and which can reasonably accommodate children, as determined in each case by the City Council, limit initial sales to households or individuals without children. B. Tenant Protection. 1. The developer shall provide each tenant an irrevocable, nontransferable, preemptive right to purchase a unit or right of exclusive occupancy at a price not greater than the price offered to the general public for such unit. Such right shall be irrevocable for a period of ninety days after the commencement of sales or the issuance - 30 - of the final public report by the real estate commissioner. Tenants shall have the right to the unit presently occupied and then to other units in the project only after the y have been declined for purchase and vacated by the occupying tenants. In no case shall an existing tenant have a preemptive right to more than one unit. 2. The developer shall offer a ninety-day extension of tenancy after the expiration of a lease or rental agreement which would expire prior to or at the time of commencement of sales or issuance of the final public report by the real estate commissioner. 3. The developer shall permit a tenant to terminate any lease or rental agreement without any penalty whatsoever after notice has been given of the intention to convert to a common interest development if such tenant notifies the developer in writing thirty days in advance of such termination. C. Buyer Protection. The developer shall furnish each prospective purchaser of a unit, a true copy of the conditional use permit issued under this chapter and a copy of each of the following informational documents (the permit and documents shall be printed in Spanish or the purchaser's native language if requested): 1. Property report; 2. Structural pest control report; 3. Structural report and building department report; 4. Building history report; 5. Statement of compliance (Form 643) pursuant to 10 California Administrative Code, Section 2792.9, or its successor, relating to operating and maintenance funds during startup; 6. Soils report as determined in each case by the Director of Planning and Development; 7. Certificate of compliance and occupancy. D. Building and Site Improvements. 1. All private streets, driveways and parking areas for the common interest developments shall be improved and constructed with a structural section and site dimensions in accordance with the standards of the City of Cupertino and shall be designed to ensure that access for municipal services shall not be denied any dwelling unit therein by reason of deteriorated or impassable private streets, driveways or parking areas, as determined by the Director of Public Works or his or her designee. 2. Sewage collection and water distribution lines on private property and property under common ownership shall be covered by one of the following responsibilities. - 31 - a. All lines owned and maintained by the corporations shall be constructed to the City of Cupertino Standard Specifications for Public Works. Water metering and billing shall be provided at each individual townhouse lot as well as for the entire development using a master meter. The difference between the sum of the individual meters and the reading of the master meter will be billed to the corporate structure. A separate sewer lateral shall be provided to serve each individual parcel. b. All lines to be owned and maintained by the City of Cupertino, a private water utility and/or the Cupertino Sanitary District shall be placed in asphalt concrete driveways, or a covered concrete line trench, acceptable to the Director of Public Works, or appropriate representation of the private water utility or sanitary district (with the necessary public utility easement running through the project) so as to provide accessibility for the maintenance of the lines. A water meter and sewer lateral shall be provided to serve each individual parcel. c. In cases of conversion to a common interest development not involving individual ownership of separate parcels (e.g., community apartments, stock cooperatives, planned developments, etc.), separate utility services will not be required. In these cases, utilities will be billed to the homeowners association and a cash deposit to secure payment of the bill will be required. 3. Undergrounding Requirements. All structures being converted from individual, corporate or partnership ownership of apartment houses to common interest developments shall, within the exterior boundary lines of such property, have all electrical, communication and similar distribution, service wires and/or cables placed underground. 4. Compliance with Codes. The design, improvement and/or construction of a common interest development shall conform to and be in full accordance with all requirements of all building, fire and housing codes, zoning provisions and other applicable local, State or federal laws or ordinances relating to protection of public health and safety, in effect at the time of the filing of the tentative map. Also, any violations of the latest adopted edition of the Uniform Housing Code as prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials, or its successor, relating specifically to provisions protecting health and safety of residents, shall be corrected, and any equipment or facilities which the Building Official determines are deteriorated or hazardous shall be repaired or replaced. In particular, the developer shall repair or replace any damaged or infested areas in need of repair or replacement as shown in the structural pest report. The interpretation of what constitutes a hazard to public health and safety shall be made by the Director of Community Development, or his or her designee. 5. Separate Metering. The consumption of gas and electricity within each dwelling - 32 - unit shall be separately metered so that the unit owner can be separately billed for each utility. The requirements of this subsection may be waived where the Director of Community Development finds that such would not be practical or reasonable. In all cases, a water shutoff valve shall be provided for each unit. 6. Shock Mounting of Mechanical Equipment. All permanent mechanical equipment, including domestic appliances, which is determined by the building official to be a source or a potential source of vibration or noise, shall be shock-mounted, isolated from the floor and ceiling, or otherwise installed in a manner approved by the Building Official to lessen the transmission of vibration and noise. 7. Separate Electrical Panel Boards. Each unit shall have its own panel board of adequate capacity to accommodate all electrical outlets which serve that unit. 8. Impact Sound Insulation. The applicant/owner shall demonstrate that wall and ceiling assemblies conform to the sound insulation performance criteria promulgated in Title 25, California Administrative Code, Section 1092, or its successor, and that any floor covering which is replaced similarly provides the same or greater insulation qualities. 9. Storage Requirements. Private, enclosed, weatherproofed and lockable outdoor storage space shall be provided for each dwelling unit according to the following schedule: Number of Bedrooms Minimum Space in Cubic Feet Least Dimension Studio or 1 150 2 feet 2 200 2 feet 3 250 2 feet 4 300 2 feet The above space shall be provided in the garage or parking area or contiguous to each unit. This requirement may be waived by the Director of Community Development if it is determined that sufficient storage space exists to reasonably attain this standard. 10. Private and Common Area Open Space. The adequacy of open space shall be reviewed in terms of area and privacy standards. Private outdoor space shall be provided for each unit, where practical. The amount of space shall be determined in each case by the size of the unit and amount of common open space. Adjoining units shall be redesigned or landscaped in such a manner so as to preclude visual intrusion into private outdoor yards or interior spaces, where practical. 11. Noise Mitigation. Appropriate site design and construction techniques shall be - 33 - utilized to ensure isolation from excessive noise sources outside of the project boundary and to ensure acoustical privacy between adjoining units. If the Director of Community Development determines that an excessive external noise source exists, the developer shall retain an acoustical engineer to evaluate the noise impact on the proposed residential development and develop mitigation measures. The construction shall comply with the applicable City ordinances and State codes relating to sound transmission control to ensure acoustical privacy between adjoining dwelling units. 12. Interim Maintenance Standards. The developer shall be responsible for improving and maintaining the structures and landscaping in accordance with the approved architectural and landscaping plans and good maintenance practices prior to turning them over to the homeowners association. A performance bond shall be collected to ensure compliance with this requirement. 19.116.040 Parking. A. Off-Street Parking. The project shall provide parking consistent with the multi- family zoning district and the owner shall demonstrate that additional spaces exist to reasonably accommodate guest parking. B. Applicability of City Ordinances Regulating Parking of Trailers and Recreational Vehicles, Etc. Chapter 19.124, regulating parking and trailers, repairing vehicles, etc., shall apply to the private street(s) and to all parking along such street(s). The parking of recreational vehicles such as boats, trailers, etc., shall be prohibited throughout the entire development unless such parking is within an enclosed area. Vehicular curb parking along the private street(s) shall be prohibited except in designated areas. Appropriate "No Parking" signs shall be installed by the applicant. 19.116.050 Application Requirements. A. In addition to the requirements of Title 18 of this code (Subdivisions) and the Subdivision Map Act, an application for the conversion of rental housing into any common interest development shall require the submittal of the following data, which data must be submitted to the Director of Community Development at the same time the tentative map is submitted: 1. A complete legal description of the property; 2. Certification that all tenants in any buildings or structure proposed to be converted have been notified individually and in writing prior to the time of filing an application hereunder; 3. A boundary map showing the existing topography of the site and the location of all existing easements, structures and other improvements, and trees over four inches in diameter; - 34 - 4. The proposed organizational documents. In addition to such covenants, conditions and restrictions that may be required by the Bureau of Real Estat e of the State of California pursuant to Title 6 (Condominiums) of the Civil Code or other State laws or policies, the organization documents shall provide for the following: a. Conveyance of units, b. Assignment of parking and management of common areas within the project, c. A proposed annual operating budget containing a sinking fund to accumulate reserve funds to pay for major anticipated maintenance, repair or replacement expenses, d. FHA regulatory agreement, if any, e. The most recent balance sheet of the association, 5. A provision that the annual assessments to members of any association shall provide for penalties for late payments and reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the event of default of the members; 6. A provision that allows the association to terminate the contract of any person or organization engaged by the developer to perform management or maintenance duties after any association assumes control of the project or any time thereafter; 7. A property report describing the condition and estimating the remaining useful life of each of the following elements of each structure situated within the project proposed for conversion: roofs, foundations, exterior paint, paved surfaces, mechanical systems, electrical systems, plumbing systems, including sewage systems, sprinkler systems for landscaping, utility delivery systems, central or community heating and air conditioning systems, fire protection systems including any automatic sprinkler systems, alarm systems, or standpipe systems, and structural elements. Such report shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer, or a licensed general building contractor or general engineering contractor; 8. A structural pest report prepared by a licensed structural pest control operator pursuant to Section 8516 of the CA Business and Professions Code, relating to written reports on the absence or presence of wood-destroying pests or organisms; 9. A structural report describing the physical elements of the project that also identifies any structural elements which are known to be structurally defective or unsafe so as to impose a hazard to the health and safety of the occupants or users of the improvements, with the final map submittal. The Director of Community Development shall maintain a form containing a reasonable list of physical elements to be described in the report, which form shall be made available to the applicant. The applicant shall arrange for project inspections by the Building Department to verify the accuracy of the deficiencies noted in the structural report. The Building Official shall prepare a report - 35 - detailing building code deficiencies or other health and safety deficiencies which must be corrected prior to sale of units of occupancy; 10. A building history report including the following: a. The date of construction of all elements of the project, b. A statement of the major uses of the project since construction, c. The date and description of each major repair of any element since the date of construction, d. The date and description of each major renovation of any element since the date of construction, e. A statement regarding current ownership of all improvements and underlying land, f. The name and address of each present tenant of the project, g. Failure to provide information required by subsections A1 through A6 of this section, inclusive, shall be accompanied by an affidavit, given under penalty of perjury, setting forth in detail all efforts undertaken to discover such information and all reasons why such information cannot be obtained; 11. A rental history detailing the size in square footage, the current or last rental rate, the monthly rental rate for the preceding two years, and the monthly vacancy over the preceding two years of each rental unit proposed to be converted; 12. Condominium Plan. The application for final subdivision map shall include a copy of the condominium plan prepared pursuant to the CA Civil Code, Section 1351. The plan shall be submitted for the information of the local governing body and need not be part of the subdivision map; 13. Project Organization. A written description regarding the proposed project organization including the use and control of the common elements and recreation facilities within the project shall be submitted with the tentative map. The statement shall detail any proposed control of common facilities to be retained by the developer or to be owned or maintained by any other organization other than the homeowners association or unit owners. 14. True Copy of Application for Final Public Report and Supplemental Questionnaire. The application shall include the following information, except that if the information required to be furnished below is not available at time of application, as a condition of approval of the permits issued pursuant to this Chapte r, the developer shall provide this information to the City within ten days of issuance by the Bureau of Real Estate: a. A true copy of each application submitted to the Bureau of Real Estate of the State - 36 - of California for issuance of a final public report for the project proposed for conversion, including all attachments and exhibits required pursuant to Section 11011 of the Business and Professions Code. b. A true copy of the statement of compliance (Form 643, as amended) pursuant to 10 California Administrative Code, Section 2792.9, or its successor, relating to operating and maintenance funds during the early stages of ownership and operation by the homeowner’s association. c. A statement whether the developer will provide any capital contribution to the homeowner’s association for deferred maintenance of the common areas, and if so, the sum and date on which the association will receive said sum; d. A true copy of the supplemental questionnaire for apartments converted to common interest developments submitted to the Bureau of Real Estate of the State of California, including all attachments and exhibits. 15. Relocation Displacement Plan. A relocation displacement plan shall detail the number of residents which will be displaced as a result of the proposed conversion and document the reasonable availability of comparable replacement housing in the Cupertino area within a rental range equal to the range which the tenants have paid as detailed in a rental report (See Section 19.116.050A11) or within a price range which is equal to or less than twenty-five percent of the income range of each household to be displaced as a result of the conversion whichever is higher. Additionally, replacement housing must be shown to meet any special needs, which are presently available in the project, of displaced tenants such as facilities for the handicapped, elderly, households with children, and availability of public transportation for the elderly or resident buyers who are temporarily displaced pending completion of improvements to the units being purchased; 16. Soils Report. A true copy of the soils report originally prepared for the subject property. In cases where a soils report has never been prepared or when information in previous reports is considered insufficient, then the developer shall provide a soils report prepared by a registered civil engineer, or equivalent, which details information as determined by the Director of Public Works; 17. All information required by Chapter 18.16 or Chapter 18.20, as the case may be, Chapter 19.12, Chapter 19.80, and such information which the Planning Commission or the Director of Community Development determines is necessary to evaluate the proposed project. 19.116.060 Application Procedures. A. Zoning. Any apartment house project proposed to be converted to a common interest development shall be rezoned to the R1C (single-family cluster) or P(Res) - 37 - (planned development project with residential intent) zoning district. B. Use Permit and Tentative Map or Parcel Map Required. No conversion shall be permitted unless and until a conditional use permit and tentative map or parcel map has been applied for and issued pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act or its successor. C. Property and Structural Pest Report. 1. After reviewing the property, structural and structural pest reports required to be submitted pursuant to Section 19.116.050A8 and inspecting the structures situated within the project when he or she deems such inspection necessary, the Building Official shall identify all items if evidenced by such reports and/or inspection to be hazardous to the life, health or safety of the occupants of such structure within the project, or the general public. Each permit issued hereunder shall require all of such items to be corrected to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 2. The Building Official shall review the property report and may require its revision and resubmission if he or she determines that substantial evidence shows that any statement therein is without foundation or fact. The report may be revised to reflect improvement, repair or replacement. D. Project Organization Document Review. The project organization documents shall be submitted to the City Attorney for a determination that such documents comply with the requirements of this chapter and the applicable State laws. E. Compliance with Housing, Building Codes and Fire Regulations. If the proposed project does not comply with the provisions of the State of California Uniform Building Code and regulations of the Santa Clara Central Fire Protection District, and/or the Building Official identifies items to be corrected as provided in the above, any use permit issued pursuant to this part shall require the developer to furnish a bond, in a penal amount equal to the reasonable estimated cost to bring their project into compliance with such codes, such fire regulations and/or such identified items to be corrected. The bond shall run in favor of the individual purchasers and the homeowners association and shall provide for reasonable attorney's fees in the event of default by the principal. The City shall hold the bond pending issuance of the certificate of completion. F. Public Hearings. 1. The City Council is the approval authority for condominium conversion applications with a recommendation for approval or denial from the Planning Commission. 2. If the City Council approves the proposed conversion, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans with an application for Architectural and Site - 38 - Approval for any exterior alterations or improvements to the buildings and/or landscaping. The Planning Commission will make a final recommendation to the City Council regarding the improvements. The City Council's final action will be a review of the architectural plan to determine approval or denial of the project. 3. The final map for the project will be reviewed in compliance with Title 18, Subdivisions of the Municipal Code. G. Letter Certifying Compliance. The Director of Community Development shall cause a final inspection of all buildings and structures to be made, upon request by the developer, to determine that the requirements of this chapter have been fulfilled. The Building Official shall then mark the inspection report to show the corrections, repairs and replacements which have been made. If complete, the Director will cause to be issued a letter certifying compliance with all of the conditions and approvals and with this title and authorize sale and/or occupancy of the units. No building or unit applied for under this chapter shall be sold without the letter certifying compliance and approving occupancy. SECTION 14: Severability. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. SECTION 15: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937. SECTION 16: Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall give notice of its adoption as required by law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be published and posted in lieu of publication and posting of the entire text. SECTION 17: Continuity. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as amendments of the earlier provisions. - 39 - INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council the 5th day of July 2017 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on this 1st day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino - 2 - Table 9.22.020 Unlawful Acts In any front, side or rear yard areas visible from a public street or sidewalk heaters, boilers, tanks, or any part of any listed item; 2. Loose materials, including but not limited to, sand dirt, gravel, concrete or any similar materials; Not Allowed, except if screened with temporary construction fencing while permitted, active and continuous, construction is occurring on the property 3. Building materials, including but not limited to, lumber, fixtures, or salvage materials recovered during demolition; Not Allowed, except if screened with temporary construction fencing while permitted, active and continuous, construction is occurring on the property 4. Temporary Fencing; Not Allowed, except while permitted, active and continuous, construction is occurring on the property 5. Storage Containers and similar items; Not Allowed on more than two (2) occasions in a calendar year twelve- month period, and not more than fifteen (15) days on each occasion, separated by at least 60 days., except if screened with temporary construction fencing while permitted, active and continuous, construction is occurring on the property. B. An accumulation of: 1. Glass, paper, metal, plastic, or other recyclables Not Allowed 2. Litter, junk, machine parts, scrap material, waste paper, boxes and cartons, packing materials, combustible trash, tires, or vehicle parts; Not Allowed C. Dead, decayed, or diseased trees, weeds, or other vegetation likely to cause a fire or health hazard, an infestation, or a habitat for rodents; Not Allowed D. A lack of adequate landscaping, or groundcover sufficient to prevent blowing dust and erosion; Not Allowed E. Tree stump(s) with a trunk diameter greater than six inches and a height of greater than 2.5 feet. As used herein "tree stump" means the base part of a tree or Not Allowed Text moved to Tables and Proposed changes Text moved to Tables Change per City Council motion at first reading - 27 - Table 19.40.060: Building Development Regulations A. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1. Maximum Allowable Development a. Net Lot Area < 10,000 square feet Lesser of:  6,500 square feet; or  45% of net lot area times the slope adjustment factor pursuant to Section 19.40.060(A)(2)* * Formula = (0.45 x Net Lot Area) x (Slope Adjustment Factor) b. Net Lot Area ≥ 10,000 square feet Lesser of:  6,500 square feet; or  4,500 square feet plus 59.59 square feet for every 1,000 square feet over 10,000 square of net lot area, times the slope adjustment factor pursuant to Section 19.40.060(A)(2)* * Formula = (4,500 +   Net Lot Area - 10000 1000 (59.59)) x (Slope Adjustment Factor) Average Slope Reduction (1.5 x (Average Slope – 0.1)) 2. Slope Adjustment Factor based on Average Slope of Net Lot Area a. Average Slope ≤ 10% No reduction in allowable floor area Slope Adjustment Factor = 1 < 10% 0% b. Average Slope between 10% and 30% A reduction in allowable floor area by one and one-half percent (1.5%) for each percent of slope over 10 percent. Slope Adjustment Factor = (1 – (1.5 x (Average slope of net lot area – 0.1)) 11% 1.5% 12% 3.0% 13% 4.5% 14% 6.0% 15% 7.5% 16% 9.0% 17% 10.5% 18% 12.0% 19% 13.5% 20% 15.0% 21% 16.5% 22% 18.0% 23% 19.5% 24% 21.0% 25% 22.5% 26% 24.0% 27% 25.5% 28% 27.0% 29% 28.5% Text consolidated for clarification Blue text indicates correction since first reading - 35 - P – - – CUP - Admin. – CUP - PC – CUP - CC – Ex – Permitted Use Not Allowed Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit issued by the City Council Excluded Uses [Section 19.64.030 –19.112.020 – No Change] 19.112.030 Site Development Regulations. Site Development Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units are as identified in Table 19.112.030. Table 19.112.030: Site Development Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units Attached to Principal Dwelling Unit Detached Conversion of portions of existing structures to an accessory dwelling unit New addition to existing accessory dwelling unit and new accessory dwelling unit A. Maximum sSize of living space, exclusive of decks 1. Minimum size 150 s.f. 2. Maximum size 10% of the net lot area, up to a maximum of 1,000 s.f., or 50 percent of the existing living space of the principal dwelling unit, whichever is more restrictive. 1a. Lots < 10,000 50 percent of the existing living space of the principal dwelling unit or 800700 s.f. , whichever is more restrictive. 800 700 s.f. 2b. Lots ≥ 10,000 50 percent of the existing living space of the principal dwelling unit or 1,200 1,000 s.f., whichever is more restrictive. 1,200 1,000 s.f. B. Second-story accessory dwelling unit Allowed if the unit: 1. Is a conversion of existing second story portions of the principal dwelling unit; and 2. Complies with applicable landscape requirements to adjoining dwellings consistent with Section 19.28.120 Not allowed Consistency with State Law Change per CC motion at first reading CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2591 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:5/3/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Housing Commission Resolution 17-03 C - 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan Conduct the Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution No.17-071 approving the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan. Recommended Action Conduct Public Hearing and adopt the draft resolution approving the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan. Background The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) annually allocates grants such as CDBG, Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) to local jurisdictions for community development activities. Cupertino is one o f nine entitlement jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. Jurisdictions typically must have a population of 50,000 or more to qualify as an “entitlement jurisdiction” that receives grant funding directly from HUD. This is Cupertino’s fifteenth year as an entitlement jurisdiction receiving a CDBG grant directly from HUD. Entitlement grants are largely allocated on a formula basis, based on several objective measures of community needs, including the extent of poverty, populations, housing overcrowding, age of housing, and extent of population growth lag in relationship to other metropolitan areas. City Council approved the allocation of fiscal year (FY) 2017 -18 CDBG, Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Funds (AHF), and Human Service Grant (HSG) funds at their meeting on June 20, 2017. As a requirement to receive these entitlement grants, Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act mandates that jurisdictions prepare a five-year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation and Report (CAPER) that identifies local community development needs and sets forth a strategy to address these needs. The 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan was adopted by City Council on April 7, 2015. 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan The CDBG Annual Action Plan is a one-year plan that describes the eligible activities that the City of Cupertino intends to undertake in FY 2017-18 to address the needs and implement the strategies identified in the adopted 2015-20 Consolidated Plan. The CDBG 2 Annual Action Plan describes the activities that the City intends to fund with HUD entitlement CDBG grant funds in FY 2017-18 to address priority housing and non- housing community development needs and to affirmatively further fair housing choice. Per HUD regulations the City is required to make the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan available for public comments for thirty days. The draft 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan was made available to the public on the Cupertino website (www.cupertino.org/housing) and City Clerk’s office from June 1, 2017 – June 30, 2017. No public comments have been received. The 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan is due to HUD by August 16, 2017. FY 2017-18 CDBG Funding Allocations The City received notification from HUD on June 28, 2017 awarding $311,943 in CDBG funding for FY 2017-18. Due to delays in HUD funding allocations, staff originally used the FY 16-17 allocation of $307,592 to estimate the FY 2017-18 allocations. The awarded FY 2017-18 allocations are an increase of $4,351 from FY 2016-17 and staff is working with grantees to increase their amounts accordingly and execute contracts. On June 20, 2017, City Council awarded FY 2017-18 CDBG funding allocations with a Contingency Plan that allowed staff to adjust the estimated amounts at the time that HUD issued final funding allocations. The tables below provide a summary of how CDBG funds have been allocated for FY 2017-18. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Entitlement Amount: $311,943 Program Income (PI): $7,944 Administration (20%) $63,977 Public Services (15%) $47,983 Capital Housing Projects (65%) $207,927 Uncommitted Funds from Prior FY 2016-17 for Capital Housing Projects $8,161 Total $328,048 Public Service Funds CDBG public service funds cannot exceed 15% of the 2017-18 entitlement amount ($311,943) and PI ($7,944) for a total of $47,983. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Public Service Funds Live Oak Adult Day Services – Senior Adult Day Care $15,495 West Valley Community Services (WVCS) – CARE Program $32,488 3 Total $47,983 Capital Housing Project Funds CDBG capital housing project funds cannot exceed 65% of the 2017-18 entitlement amount ($311,943), PI ($7,944), and Uncommitted Funds from Prior FY 2016-17 ($8,161) for a total of $216,088. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Capital Housing Project Funds Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley – Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Project $64,000 West Valley Community Services – Vista Village Renovation Project $152,088 Total $216,088 Housing Commission Review At its June 8, 2017 meeting, the Housing Commission adopted Resolution No. 17-03 on 4-0-1 (Kapil absent) vote recommending that the City Council adopt the 2017-18 CDBG Draft Annual Action Plan. Fiscal Impact Sufficient funding will be available and budgeted for all 2017-18 CDBG funding allocations. CDBG programs and projects are funded by HUD grant funds. Prepared by: Kerri Heusler, Senior Housing Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Benjamin Fu, Assistant Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft Resolution B - Housing Commission Resolution No. 17- 03 C - 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan RESOLUTION NO. 17-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING THE 2017-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ANNUAL ACTION PLAN WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that funds be made available for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is required to submit a 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for review and approval prior to being allowed to expend CDBG funds for fiscal year 2017-18; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino makes the certifications required by 24 CFR Sections 91.225 and 570.303 as contained in the CDBG Annual Action Plan for fiscal year 2017-18; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan approved by the City Council of the City of Cupertino to HUD. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of August, 2017 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ __________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor City of Cupertino 1 RESOLUTION NO. 17-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECCOMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 2017-18 CDBG ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that funds be made available for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to apply for funds as an Entitlement Jurisdiction under said Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino estimates receiving a $307,592 CDBG entitlement grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be allocated for fiscal year 2017-18; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino estimates allocating $7,944 in CDBG program income for fiscal year 2017-18; and WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino estimates allocating up to $8,161 of available uncommitted CDBG funds from prior fiscal year 2016-17 for fiscal year 2017-18; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is required to submit a fiscal year 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan to HUD for review and approval prior to being allowed to expend CDBG funds for fiscal year 2017-18; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino put into place a CDBG Contingency Plan (Exhibit 1) because of the uncertainty in the federal budget and the rev ised timeline provided by HUD to submit the Action Plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Housing Commission of the City of Cupertino hereby recommends approval of the fiscal year 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan to City Council for final adoption; and PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing Commission of the City of Cupertino this 8th day of June, 2017 by the following vote: Vote Members of the Housing Commission AYES: Chair Daruwalla, Vice Chair Chu, Bose, Zhao NOES: none ABSENT: Kapil ABSTAIN: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Kerri Heusler /s/Nina Daruwalla Kerri Heusler Nina Daruwalla Senior Housing Planner Chair, Housing Commission Exhibit 1 CDBG Contingency Plan In the case of funding increase, the following plan is recommended: Public Services ($47,331): Distribute the additional available amount in the public services cap until an applicant is fully funded. If an applicant reaches the funding amount requested, any remaining funds will be distributed to other applicants who have not yet reached the maximum funding amount. Administration ($63,107): Funds are to be allocated to the City of Cupertino for CDBG administration. General Fund allocation will be reduced accordingly. Capital/Housing Projects ($213,259): Distribute the additional available amount in the capital/housing projects cap until an applicant is fully funded. If an applicant reaches the funding amount requested, any remaining funds will be distributed to other applicants who have not yet reached the maximum funding amount. In the case of a funding decrease, the following plan is recommended: Public Services ($47,331): Distribute any funding decrease proportionately among the remaining public service applicants, but maintain a minimum funding allocation of $15,000 for any applicant to the extent feasible. Administration ($63,107): Any decrease in funding will be supplemented by the General Fund for CDBG administration. Capital/Housing Projects ($213,259): Any decrease in funding will be supplemented by the Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) for CDBG capital/housing projects. Page 1 of 44 City of Cupertino FY 2017 Annual Action Plan Annual Update of the City’s Consolidated Plan for Period July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 Public Review and Comment Period June 1, 2017- June 30, 2017 Prepared by the Department of Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Approved by City Council ________ Resolution No. ______ Page 2 of 44 Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) Introduction The City of Cupertino is an entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The purpose of CDBG funding is to help jurisdictions address their community development needs. CDBG grantees are eligible to use the resources they receive for Public Services, Community and Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Public Facilities/Infrastructure, and CIP Housing Rehabilitation. Public Service projects provide social services and/or other direct support to individuals and households in need of assistance. Community and Economic Development projects are focused on assisting businesses and organizations with small business loans, façade improvements, and other initiatives. CIP Public Facilities/Infrastructure projects are those which aim to improve public facilities and infrastructure. CIP Housing Rehabilitation projects are for housing rehabilitation improvements of single and multi-unit housing. A total of $328,048 is available for funding projects and programs during the 2017 Program Year which correlates with the City Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. The City anticipates receiving $311,943 from the federal CDBG program. In addition, the City anticipates approximately $7,944 in program income and $8,161 in reallocated funds from previous years. Cupertino has access to a variety of federal, state, and local resources to achieve its housing and community development priorities. Table A, FY 2018 CDBG Budget, summarizes the uses of the funds proposed during FY 2017. Specific funding resources will be utilized based on the opportunities and constraints of each particular project or program. Table A. Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Applicant Agency Budget Public Service West Valley Community Services – Community Access to Resource and Education $32,488.00 Live Oak Adult Day Services – Senior Adult Day Care $15,495.00 Subtotal: $47,983.00 Planning and Administration Administration $63,977.00 2017 Program Income (PI) $7,944.00 CDBG Capital/Housing Project Applications (One-Year Funding Cycle, FY 2017/18) Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley – Housing Repair and $64,000.00 Page 3 of 44 Rehabilitation Program West Valley Community Services – Vista Village Rehabilitation Project $152,088.00 Subtotal: $216,088.00 Grand Total $328,048.00 Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan The City of Cupertino is a city in Santa Clara County (County), directly west of San Jose on the western edge of the Santa Clara Valley with portions extending into the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The population was 58,302 at the 2010 census. The City has the most educated residents in the country and is one of the most expensive cities to live in. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the Needs Assessment in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Evaluation of past performance The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with all rules and regulations associated with the CDBG and HOME entitlement grant programs. The City’s Annual Action Plans and CAPERs have provided many details about the goals, projects and programs completed by the City. The City recognizes that the evaluation of past performance is critical to ensure the City and its subrecipients are implementing activities effectively and that those activities align with the City’s overall strategies and goals. The City evaluates the performance of subrecipients providing public services on a quarterly basis. Subrecipients are required to submit quarterly progress reports, which include client data, performance objectives, as well as data on outcome measures. Prior to the start of the program year, program objectives are developed collaboratively by the subrecipient and the City, ensuring that they are aligned with the City's overall goals and strategies. The City utilizes the quarterly reports to review progress towards annual goals. Cupertino was successful in addressing the goals and objectives cited in the FY 2015-16 (July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016) Action Plan. The CDBG funds were used to carry out activities that benefited low- and moderate-income persons. Only CDBG administration funds did not directly serve low- and moderate-income persons. Eligible funded public service activities included fair housing, food, clothing, senior services and emergency housing services. These activities continue to make a positive impact on identified needs in the community and are providing services that might otherwise have gone unmet. Eligible funded capital housing projects included a single family residence minor repair program which served low-income homeowners city-wide by addressing accessibility and health and safety measures and a multi -family residential rehabilitation project. As can be expected, community needs continue to exceed the available resources. Page 4 of 44 Summary of Citizen Participation Process and Consultation Process The City, in collaboration with other jurisdictions and a consultant team, launched a comprehensive outreach strategy to enhance and broaden citizen participation in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. The team informed the public that it was in the process of creating the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, and encouraged public participation in the process by conducting a Regional Needs Survey and hosting regional forums in collaboration with other jurisdictions in the County, and conducting local hearings. In addition to the extensive consultation conducted for the Consolidated Plan, as noted above, the City solicited additional input for the FY 2017-18 Annual Action Plan. As required by HUD, the City provides multiple opportunities for public review and comment on the Action Plan and on any substantial amendments to it. Per the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan, the City held a 30 day public review comment period for the Action Plan. The City published notifications of upcoming public hearings and the 30 day public review comment period in the local Cupertino Courier newspaper of general circulation. The City held two advertised public hearings on June 8, 2017 and June 20, 2017. The Action Plan 30 day public review period occurred from June 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017. Summary of public comments To date, no comments have been received. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them The City accepts and responds to all comments that are submitted. As mentioned above, no public comments were received regarding the FY 2018 Action Plan. Summary Please see discussion above. Page 5 of 44 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b) 1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan The City is the Lead and Responsible Agency for the HUD entitlement program in Cupertino. The Community Development Department is responsible for administering the City’s HUD entitlement grants, including the CDBG grant. By federal law, the City is required to submit to HUD a five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans listing priorities and strategies for the use of federal funds. Table 1 – Responsible Agencies Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency Cupertino CDBG Administrator Cupertino Community Development Department The Consolidated Plan shows how the City plans to use its CDBG funds to meet the housing and community development needs of its residents. To update its 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, the City collaborated with the County of Santa Clara (County) and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County to identify and prioritize housing and community development needs across the region, and to develop strategies to meet those needs. The FY 2016/17 Annual Action Plan represents the second year of CDBG funding of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information: Kerri Heusler Senior Housing Planner City of Cupertino Community Development Department Senior Housing Planner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: 408-777-3251 Email: KerriH@cupertino.org Page 6 of 44 AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) Introduction The Action Plan is a one-year plan which describes the eligible programs, projects and activities to be undertaken with funds expected during FY 2017-18 (July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018) and their relationship to the priority housing, homeless and community development needs outlined in the 2015-20 Consolidated Plan. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l)) During FY 2017-18, the City will continue to work with non-profit organizations in providing programs and services for low-income households; private industry, in particular financial and development groups, to encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities regionally and in the City; and other local jurisdictions in carrying out and monitoring regional projects in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. The City will provide technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds and will continue to attend the Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators meeting. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County. The CoC’s primary responsibilities are to coordinate large scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness in the County. The CoC is governed by the Santa Clara CoC Board (CoC Board), which stands as the driving force committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending homelessness in the County. The CoC Board is comprised of individuals who also serve on the Destination: Home (D:H) Leadership Board. D:H is a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to end chronic homelessness, and leads the development of community wide strategy relat ed to the CoC’s work. Currently, the County’s Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) is the Collaborative Application for the CoC. OSH is responsible for implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC and ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH). In 2015, D:H and the CoC released a Community Plan to End Homelessness in the County (the Plan), which outlined a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020. The strategies and action steps included in the plan were informed by members who participated in a series of community summits designed to address the needs of homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of Page 7 of 44 homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of homelessness. The City participates in the CoC. The City’s Senior Housing Planner regularly attends the CoC meetings. Members of the CoC meet on a monthly basis in various work groups to ensure successful implementation components of the Plan action steps. A Community Plan Implementation Team, which includes members of the CoC and other community stakeholders, meets quarterly to evaluate progress toward the Plan's goals, identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and pursue an overall systematic approach to address homelessness. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS The City does not receive ESG funds. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities. The City consulted with various groups and organizations as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Table 2, Agencies, groups, organizations who participated in the Consolidated Plan lists all of those parties who participated in the process. Table 2 – Agencies, Groups, Organizations who Participated in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Process 1 Agency/Organization Abilities United Type of Agency/Organization Service Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Non-Homeless Special Needs Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 2 Agency/Organization Afghan Center Type of Agency/Organization Cultural Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Page 8 of 44 Consultation? Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 3 Agency/Organization California Housing Odd Fellows Foundation Type of Agency/Organization Housing, Services-Children, Community/Family Services and Organizations What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 4 Agency/Organization Casa de Clara San Jose Catholic Worker Type of Agency/Organization Services-Homeless, Services-Health What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 5 Agency/Organization Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Type of Agency/Organization Services-Elderly Persons What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 6 Agency/Organization City of Campbell Type of Agency/Organization Other government – local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Page 9 of 44 improved coordination? 7 Agency/Organization City of Cupertino Type of Agency/Organization Other government – local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 8 Agency/Organization City of Gilroy Type of Agency/Organization Other government – local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 9 Agency/Organization City of Mountain View Type of Agency/Organization Other government – local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 10 Agency/Organization Bill Wilson Center Type of Agency/Organization Services-Children What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 11 Agency/Organization City of Palo Alto-Human Relations Commission Type of Agency/Organization Other government – local civic leaders What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated Agency attended Community Forum as part of the Page 10 of 44 outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 12 Agency/Organization City of San Jose Type of Agency/Organization Other government – local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 13 Agency/Organization City of Santa Clara Type of Agency/Organization Other government – local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 14 Agency/Organization City of Sunnyvale Type of Agency/Organization Other government – local What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 15 Agency/Organization Coldwell Banker Type of Agency/Organization Business leaders What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 16 Agency/Organization Community School of Music and Arts Type of Agency/Organization Community Family Services and Organizations What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. 17 Agency/Organization Community Services Agency of Mountain View and Los Altos Page 11 of 44 Type of Agency/Organization Services-Elderly persons What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan Describe how the Agency/Organization was consulted. What are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Community Forum as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting There were no agency types that were not consulted as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Page 12 of 44 Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? City of Cupertino General Plan Housing Element (2014-2022) City of Cupertino The Housing Element serves as a policy guide to help the City plan for its existing and future housing needs. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low- income and special needs households. Continuum of Care Regional Continuum of Care Council The Continuum of Care works to alleviate the impact of homelessness in the community through the cooperation and collaboration of social service providers. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to prevent and end homelessness. 2012-2014 Comprehensive HIV Prevention & Care Plan for San José Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care This plan provides a roadmap for the Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care to provide a comprehensive and compassionate system of HIV prevention and care services for the County. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services to benefit special needs households. Affordable Housing Funding Landscape & Local Best Practices (2013) Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley This report provides a comparison of the different funding strategies available for affordable housing in the County, and the best practices for funding new affordable housing. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low-income and special needs households. Affordable Housing Funding Landscape & Local Best Practices (2013) Cities Association of Santa Clara County and Housing Trust Silicon Valley This report provides a comparison of the different funding strategies available for affordable housing in the County, and the best practices for funding new affordable housing. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low-income and special needs households. Regional Housing Need Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2014-2022 Association of Bay Area Governments This plan analyzes the total regional housing need for Santa Clara County and all of the Bay Area. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low- income and special needs households. Page 13 of 44 Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020 Destination: Home This plan analyzes the total regional housing need for Santa Clara County and all of the Bay Area. This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low- income Page 14 of 44 AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c) Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting The Housing Division of the Community Development Department is the lead agency for overseeing the development of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. Per the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan, the City is to allow a 30 day public review comment period for the Action Plan. The City has published notifications of upcoming public hearings and the 30 day public review comment period in the local Cupertino Courier newspaper of general circulation. The City held two advertised public hearings on June 8, 2017 and June 20, 2017. The Action Plan 30 day public review period occurred from June 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017. The City has not received any public comments to-date. Page 15 of 44 Citizen Participation Outreach Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/atten dance Summary of comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 1 Public Meeting Non targeted/broad community The Housing Commission met on June 8, 2017 to discuss the FY 17/18 funding allocations. Non-profit agencies discussed their funding request and thanked the City for its continued support. Not applicable 2 Public meeting Non targeted/broad community The City Council held a public hearing on June 20, 2017 to discuss the FY 17/18 funding allocations. There were no public comments received on the Action Plan. Not applicable 3 Public meeting Non targeted/broad community A public hearing notice was published in the Cupertino Courier and the public comment period was held from June 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017. There were no public comments received on the draft FY17 Action Plan. Not applicable Page 16 of 44 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1, 2) Introduction In FY 2018, the City will allocate approximately $328,048 to eligible activities that address the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. Table 5 - Expected Resources – Priority Table Program Sourc e of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Reminder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public- Federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services $311,943 $7,944 $8,161 $328,048 $0 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable housing units and public services that benefit low- income and special needs households. Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Page 17 of 44 Entitlement Funds The City leverages financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD programs. The City joined the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium in 2015. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-16, developers of affordable housing projects were eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process. Applications are submitted to the County OSH for the HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects within the City. If the City receives HOME funds from its participation in the HOME Consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will be provided from the City’s Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF). Currently, the BMR AHF had an available balance of approximately $6 million. To date, no projects in the City have applied for HOME Consortium funds. Other Federal Grant Programs In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions. County of Santa Clara and Local Housing and Community Development Sources There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals. These resources are discussed below: Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) The BMR AHF receives its revenue from the payment of housing mitigation fees from non-residential (office, commercial, retail, research and development (R&D), hotel and industrial) and residential development. The non-residential housing mitigation fee jobs/housing nexus study acknowledges housing needs created by the development of office, commercial, retail, hotel, R&D and industrial development. A fee is applied to new square footage of non-residential development in the City. The fees collected are deposited in the City's BMR AHF and are to be used for the provision of affordable housing. A portion of the BMR AHF funds will be targeted to benefit extremely low-income households and persons with specials needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with development disabilities). General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program Page 18 of 44 Annually the City Council allocates approximately $40,000 from the General Fund to public and human service agencies within the City. West Valley Community Services (WVCS) WVCS is a non-profit organization that administers affordable housing programs in- house which include providing support services to homeless individuals and managing a transitional housing facility. Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) The HTSV is a public/private venture, dedicated to increasing affordable housing in the County. The HTSV makes available funds for developers to borrow for the construction of the affordable units. Cupertino originally contributed $250,000 to the fund and accessed the fund to assist in the development of Vista Village, a 24-unit affordable apartment complex constructed by BRIDGE Housing and Cupertino Community Services. Subsequently, the City contributed $25,000 in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and an additional $1,000,000 in 2011. The City’s one million dollar contribution has been committed to an affordable senior development in the City. Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program The MCC program provides assistance to first-time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20% of their annual mortgage interest payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. The County administers the MCC Program on behalf of the jurisdictions in the County, including Cupertino. The program does establish maximum sales price limits on units assisted in this program and, due to the high housing costs in Cupertino, there have been few households assisted in Cupertino in recent years. Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (SCCAHF) In July 2002, the County Board of Supervisors created an Office of Affordable Housing and established a housing trust fund in the amount of $18.6 million to be used for affordable housing developments. The primary goal of the fund is to leverage funding with other sources and create affordable housing in the County. Density Bonus Ordinance The City's Density Bonus Ordinance allows up to a 35% increase in density for developments greater than 5 units that provide a proportion of units for very low- or low- income households or housing for senior citizens. In addition to the density bonus, certain incentives and/or concessions may also be eligible for the developer to apply for. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan Page 19 of 44 The City has no surplus vacant land that would be available for the development of housing or services. The City of Cupertino FY 2017-2018 Action Plan covers the time period from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 (HUD Program Year 2017). The City’s FY 2018 entitlement amount is $311,943. Additionally, the City estimates approximately $7,944 in program income and an estimated $8,161 in available uncommitted funds from the prior program year, bringing the total estimated budget for FY 2017-2018 to $328,048. While HUD allocations are critical, the allocations are not sufficient to overcome barriers and address all needs that low-income individuals and families face in attaining self-sufficiency. The City will continue to leverage additional resources as described above to provide support and services to the populations in need within the community. The City is not eligible to receive direct funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOWPA). These programs are also covered under the Consolidated Plan Regulations. Discussion Please see information provided in previous sections. Page 20 of 44 Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives - 91.420, 91.220(c)(3)&(e) Goals Summary Information Table 1 – Goals Summary Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Projected Annual Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordabl e housing 2015 2020 Affordable Housing N/A Affordable Housing CDBG $64,000 Rental units rehabilitated: 12 housing units Homeowner housing units rehabilitated: 7 Housing Units 2 Homeless ness 2015 2020 Homeless N/A Homelessness CDBG: $32,488 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 100 persons assisted 3 Strengthe n Neighbor hoods 2015 2020 Non-housing community development Non- homeless special needs N/A Community services and public improvements CDBG $15,495 Public service activities other than for low/ mod income housing benefit: 11 persons assisted Public facility or infrastructure activities other than for low/ mod income housing benefit: 17 persons assisted 4 Fair Housing 2015 2020 Non- Housing community development N/A Fair Housing BMR Funds $10,000 Public service activities other than for low/mod income housing benefit: 15 persons assisted Goal Descriptions Page 21 of 44 Table 2 – Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low- income and special needs households 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description Support activities to prevent and end homelessness 3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low-income and special needs households 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description Promote fair housing choice Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.215(b): Not applicable. Page 22 of 44 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City and serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in no particular order, are: 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low-income and special needs housing 2. Support activities to prevent and end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low-income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. Table 8 – Project Information # Project Name 1 City of Cupertino – Planning & Administration 2 West Valley Community Services – Community Access to Resource and Education (CARE) 3 Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity – Fair Housing Services 4 Live Oak Adult Day Services – Senior Adult Day Care 5 Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley – Housing Repair and Rehab Program 6 West Valley Community Services – Vista Village Rehabilitation Project Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs. The City awards CDBG funding to nonprofit agencies to provide public services and housing for low-income and special needs households. The City operates on a two-year grant funding cycle for CDBG public service grants (FY 2017-2019), and a one-year cycle for CDBG capital housing projects (FY 2017-2018). Projects are only considered for funding within the Consolidated Plan period if they address the goals discussed above. The City’s overall allocation priorities are as follows:  CDBG administrative funds will not exceed the 20 percent cap of the estimated entitlement amount and program income.  CDBG public service funds will not exceed the 15 percent cap of the estimated entitlement amount and program income.  The remainder of CDBG funds (65 percent) is proposed to be allocated toward eligible capital housing projects.  Available uncommitted funds from the prior FY is proposed to be allocated for additional eligible CDBG capital housing projects. Page 23 of 44 AP-38 Projects Summary Table 3 – Project Summary 1 Name of Organization: Live Oak Adult Day Services Project Name: Senior Adult Day Care Target Area: N/A Goal Supported: Strengthen Neighborhoods. Needs Addressed: Community services Funding: CDBG $15,495 Description: Provides specialized program of adult day care for frail elderly dependent adults who are residents of the City of Cupertino. Target Date: June 30, 2018 Estimated the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 21 unduplicated frail, depended, low-income Cupertino seniors. Location Description: Serves all residents. Services provided at 20920 McClellan Road, Cupertino. Planned Activities Provide services for seniors at-risk of being institutionalized. Provide specialized program such as recreation, mental stimulation, companionship and meals to seniors. 2. Name of Organization: West Valley Community Services (WVCS) Project Name: Community Access to Resource and Education (CARE) Target Area: N/A Goal Supported: Strengthen neighborhoods and homeless. Needs Addressed: Community Services and Homeless Services Funding: CDBG $32,488 Description: Support activities to prevent and end homelessness and support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low- income and special needs households. Target Date: June 30, 2018 Estimated the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities: Serve a total of 100 unduplicated households by providing case management and support services. Location Description: Citywide Page 24 of 44 Planned Activities: The CARE program incorporates both case management and wrap around services to help at-risk and vulnerable household’s manage crisis and provide stabilization to help them move towards self-sufficiency. The target population of the CARE program includes low-income seniors, families with children, at-risk youth and adults. The CARE program includes case management, access to food pantry and emergency financial assistance. 3. Name of Organization: Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV) Name of Program: Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Project Target Area N/A Goal Supported: Affordable housing Needs Addressed: Community services, health and safety repairs and affordable housing Funding: CDBG $64,000 Description: Preserves affordable housing by transforming homes through critical repairs, accessibility modifications and energy efficient upgrades for low-income homeowners and community centers, at no cost to the service recipient. The majority of the low-income homeowners served are elderly seniors and/or people with disabilities, who are physically and financially unable to maintain safe and warm living conditions for themselves and their families Target Date June 30, 2018 Location Description: Citywide Planned Activities: Provide home safety repairs, mobility and accessibility improvements for low- income households in Cupertino with the primary consideration being the correction of safety hazards. 4. Name of Organization: West Valley Community Services Name of Program: Vista Village Rehabilitation Project Target Area: N/A Goal Supported: Affordable Housing Needs Addressed: Community services, health and safety repairs and affordable housing. Funding: $152,088 Description: This project will help repair Vista Village BMR rental complex. The complex owned by WVCS was built in 2002. The complex features one bedroom and two bedroom units. The repair includes interior repairs of 7 units that have residents living there for more that10 years. The repairs include: laminate flooring, painting of the units, new kitchen countertop, new laminate floor for bathroom. The exterior repairs with are due to normal wear and tear includes front landing and stair repair, exterior painting, drought resistant landscape, fence repair, and resealing of the parking lot. Target Date: June 30, 2018 Location Description 10104 Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 Planned Activities: The total project scope includes the following: 1. Repair seven housing units, including new flooring, kitchen counter Page 25 of 44 top, interior painting, and new toilets. The residents of these unis moved into their apartment in 2002 when the Vista Village complex was first built, and no significant repairs have been conducted since then. There are four one bedroom units and three two bedroom units that require these repairs. The cost also includes motel relocation expenses for the residents currently occupying these units. Residents will need to be briefly relocated in order to complete this work. 2. Landing repairs-Several landing areas throughout the complex need repair. Due to drought and now rain, the wood is rotting and chipping away. This will become a safety concerns if not addressed soon. This project also takes into consideration the cost associated with relocating some of the residents who live on the second floor as the work on the landing will prohibit them from entering and exiting their units. 3. Stairs and railing replacement as needed due to similar issues of rotting wood. 4. Vista landscaping- This will include broken fence repair, sprinkler repair, removing trees that are dead or rotting and replacing plants and shrubs with landscaping that is drought resistant. We will also level the ground as several areas are flooding due to uneven ground and soil erosion. 5. Exterior LED Lighting – The complex is not currently well lit and this will help save energy and provide a safe and well-lit environment for our residents. 6. Reseal the driveway and repair parking posts- Due to wear and tear, several areas of the driveway have bumps and dips. Several parking posts and gutters are damaged around the complex. 7. Exterior paint-The units have not been painted since 2002, and a full exterior paint treatment will refresh the complex and the local community. 5. Name of Organization: City of Cupertino Name of Project: Administration and Planning Target Area: N/A Goal Supported Affordable housing, Homelessness, Strengthen Neighborhoods, Fair Housing Need Addressed Affordable housing, Homelessness, Strengthen Neighborhoods, Fair Housing Funding: CDBG $63,977 Description: Planning and administration Target Date: June 30, 2018 Location Description: City of Cupertino, Community Development & Public Works Department 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Planned Activities: Administer the Administrative costs for the overall management, coordination, and evaluation of the CDBG program, and the project delivery costs associated with bringing projects to completion. Page 26 of 44 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG funds. Table 10 - Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds Not applicable Not applicable Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussion above. Page 27 of 44 Affordable Housing AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) The City identified affordable housing as a primary objective for the expenditure of CDBG funds in the Consolidated Plan. Although CDBG entitlement dollars are limited, the City does anticipate expending a significant portion of its CDBG funds on the preservation and provision of affordable housing. A detailed discussion of how HUD entitlements will be used to support affordable housing needs within the City is provided in AP-20, with the number of households to be assisted itemized by goal. Table 11. One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0 Non-Homeless 7 Special-Needs 12 Total 19 Table 12 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0 The Production of New Units 0 Rehab of Existing Units 19 Acquisition of Existing Units 0 Total 19 Discussion Please see discussion above. Page 28 of 44 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) Introduction The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,546 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8). The Section 8 waiting list contains over 20,000 households (estimated to be a 10-year wait). HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,100 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households and more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low -income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals. In 2008, HACSC entered a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW) agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance. Additionally, HACSC has used LIHTC financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable. HACSC owns and manages four public housing units, which are all located in the City of Santa Clara. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership Although the majority of their units have been converted to affordable housing stock, HACSC is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners on the HACSC board. HACSC has been a MTW agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of its successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which provides resources for programs aimed at LMI families. If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussion above. Page 29 of 44 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,681 single individuals) and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The homeless assistance program planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care (CoC), governed by the Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the CoC Board of Directors. The membership of the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local jurisdictions comprised of community-based organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara, governmental departments, health service agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith community, and research, policy and planning groups. The homeless services system utilized by the CoC is referred to as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors outcomes and performance measures for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County. Last year, the CoC and service providers transitioned to a new system referred to as Clarity. The system provides additional tools and resources to assist the CoC and service providers to track information regarding clients served. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs In January 2017, a Point in Time (PIT) count was conducted for Santa Clara County by the City of San Jose in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara. The PIT is an intense survey used to count the number of homeless living throughout Santa Clara County on the streets, in shelters, safe havens or in transitional housing, or in areas not meant for human habitation. The survey was conducted by hundreds of volunteers who asked those living on the streets, as well as the residents of shelters, safe havens and transitional housing, to respond to questions related to their needs. A portion of the survey addresses the needs of those surveyed. Cupertino financially contributed to this effort. At the time of this report, the results had not been released. The next PIT is scheduled for January 2019. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons In FY 2017-2018, the City will allocate General Fund dollars to the following transitional housing programs:  Maitri – Direct Client Services: Provides transitional housing and related supportive services to low-income victims of domestic violence who are at high risk of becoming homeless and/or suffering further abuse to themselves and their children. The City will continue to coordinate services to the homeless through inter-agency such as efforts through the Collaborative, Help House the Homeless, and the Community Technology Page 30 of 44 Alliance. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing ind ividuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again In FY 2017-2018 the City will allocate CDBG dollars to the following services and programs:  West Valley Community Services – Community Access to Resource and Education (CARE) - The CARE program incorporates both case management and wrap around services to help at risk and vulnerable household’s mange crisis and provide stabilization to help them move towards self-sufficiency. The target population of the CARE program includes low-income seniors, families with children, at-risk youth and adults. The CARE program includes case management, access to food pantry and emergency financial assistance. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs an d institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. FY 2017-2018 CDBG and General Fund dollars will also fund the following:  Live Oak Adult Day Services – Senior Adult Day Care - Provides services for seniors at- risk of being institutionalized. Provides specialized programs such as recreation, mental stimulation, companionship and nutritious meals to seniors.  Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long-Term Care Ombudsman – The program promotes the rights and well-being of residents in long term care facilities in the County and provides residents with a means by which their complaints can be heard and resolved.  SALA – Legal Assistance for the Elderly - Provides free legal services to low-income seniors at the Cupertino Senior Center. Legal services provided are in the area of consumer complaints, housing, elder abuse, and simple wills. Along with the coordinated efforts described above, the City offers affordable housing and other public services targeted toward low-income families that are the most at-risk of becoming homeless. Discussion Please see above. Page 31 of 44 AP- -75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) Introduction The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools. However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices. Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment The City identified several potential constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing and affordable housing, in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update including:  General Plan - The General Plan indicates the allowable uses and densities at various locations in the City. The Land Use/Community Design section identifies five categories of residential uses based on dwelling unit density, expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre. As such, a City’s General Plan contains several items that can affect the development and distribution of housing, such as land-use classifications, and density and intensity standards.  Zoning Ordinance - Zoning ordinances and other land-use controls have a direct effect on the availability and range of housing choices within a community. The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance establishes development standards and densities for new housing in the City. These regulations include minimum lot sizes, maximum number of dwelling units per acre, lot width, setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking requirements.  Parking Requirements - Parking requirements, when excessive, may serve as a constraint to housing development by increasing development costs and reducing the amount of land available for project amenities or additional units. The City’s parking requirements are higher than many other jurisdictions, particularly for single -family homes. Considering the high cost of land, the high parking standards may serve as a constraint to Page 32 of 44 housing provision.  Site Improvements - Site improvement requirements are the responsibility of residential developers who are responsible for constructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements on new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts, such as increased storm water runoff or added traffic congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer expenses may be necessary to mitigate impacts. These expenses may be passed on to consumers, as increased sales or rental costs. In general, residential developers interviewed for the 2014-2022 Housing Element update reported that the Cupertino’s public policies do not stand as a constraint to new housing production. Discussion As part of the Housing Element Update, the City has identified several strategies to increase affordable housing:  Designate sufficient land at appropriate densities to accommodate Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064 units for the 2014-2022 General Plan Housing Element planning period. Ensure that all new developments, including market-rate residential developments help mitigate project-related impacts on affordable housing needs.  Encourage the development of a diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types (including smaller moderate cost housing) with an emphasis on the provision of housing for lower- and moderate-income households.  Continue to implement the Non-Residential Housing Mitigation Program that requires developers of office, hotel, research and development (R&D), retail and industrial space to pay a mitigation fee, which will be used to support affordable housing in the City. The mitigation fees are deposited in the City’s BMR AHF.  Continue to implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market-rate residential development.  The City will encourage use of density bonuses and incentives, as applicable, for housing developments.  Continue to encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-income households and persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled).  Continue to facilitate housing opportunities for special needs persons by allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use in the “BQ” Quasi-Public zoning district.  Continue to retain a fair housing services provider to provide outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints. Additionally, the City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the following programs and ordinances: Below Market Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) Page 33 of 44 The City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) receives its revenue from the payment of housing mitigation fees from non -residential (office, retail, research and development (R&D), hotel and industrial) and residential development. The residential BMR program applies to new residential developments greater than one unit. Homeownership developments of one to six units are required to pay an in-lieu fee. Homeownership developments of seven units are greater are required to designate 15 percent of the total number of units in an ownership development as affordable. Developers of market-rate rental units, where the units cannot be sold individually, must pay a housing mitigation fee to the BMR AHF. For non-residential housing mitigation in the City, a fee is applied to new square footage of development. The fee is then deposited in the City’s BMR AHF and is used for the provision of affordable housing. The City Council adopted a nexus study on May 5, 2015 that reassessed the housing mitigation fees developers pay to the BMR AHF. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) The City joined the County’s HOME Consortium in 2014. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in the federal FY 2015, developers of affordable housing projects were eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Cupertino. Page 34 of 44 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) Introduction This section discusses the City’s efforts in addressing the underserved needs, expanding and preserving affordable housing, reducing lead-based paint hazards, and developing institutional structure for delivering housing and community development activities. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City will foster and maintain affordable housing by continuing the following programs and ordinances:  The City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, which allows an additional unit to be built on any already developed parcel containing a single family home.  The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance allows an increase in density for developments that provide a proportion of units for very low or low-income households or for seniors.  All new developments must either provide BMR units or pay a housing mitigation fee, which is placed in the City’s BMR AHF.  Homeownership developments between one unit and six units pay an in-lieu fee which is deposited into the City’s BMR AHF. Homeownership developments greater than six units must designate at least 15 percent of units within a development at a cost that makes the units affordable to median and moderate income households.  The City’s participation in the County’s HOME Consortium will allow developers of eligible affordable housing projects in the City to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Cupertino, including acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards Lead-based paint awareness and abatement will be fully integrated by the City of Cupertino into its assisted housing programs. Each tenant, landlord and property owner will be informed of t he dangers, symptoms, testing, treatment and prevention of lead-based paint poisoning. Lead-based paint hazard stabilization or abatement will be provided in each and every rehabilitation project. Furthermore, adherence to Federal guidelines for reduction activities with lead-based paint is provided for in every federally funded rehabilitation loan. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families In a continuing effort to reduce poverty, the City will make it a priority to fund agencies that provide direct assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming homeless and make a commitment to improve the communication and service delivery capabilities of agencies and organizations that provide programs to assist the homeless. Page 35 of 44 Depending on funding availability, the City will continue to provide assistance to public agencies and nonprofit organizations providing neighborhood housing services, supportive services to the homeless, older adults with physical or mental impairment, the mentally ill, victims of domestic violence, and households with abused children among others. Coordinate with public agencies providing job training, life skills training, lead poisoning prevention and remediation and other education programs are listed in the 2015-20 Consolidated Plan strategies. As discussed in AP-65, in FY 2017-2018 the City will allocate CDBG and General Fund dollars to the following program:  West Valley Community Services – Community Access to Resource and Education (CARE) - The CARE program incorporates both case management and wrap around services to help at risk and vulnerable household’s manage crisis and provide stabilization to help them move towards self-sufficiency. The target population of the CARE program includes low-income seniors, families with children, at-risk youth and adults. The CARE program includes case management, access to food pantry and emergency financial assistance.  Live Oak Adult Day Services – Senior Adult Day Care – Serve 21 unduplicated frail, dependent, low-income Cupertino seniors. Provides services for seniors at-risk of being institutionalized. Provides specialized programs such as recreation, mental stimulation, companionship and nutritious meals to seniors. Actions planned to develop institutional structure City staff will continue the following collaborative efforts to improve institutional structure:  Regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions at the CDBG Coordinators Meeting and Regional Housing Working Group  Joint jurisdiction Request for Proposals and project review committees  Coordination on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions  HOME Consortium meetings between member jurisdictions for affordable housing projects Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. The City benefits from a strong jurisdiction and region-wide network of housing and community development partners, such as Regional Housing Working Group and the CoC. To improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation, the City will continue to participate with other local jurisdictions and developers in sharing information and resources. In addition to the actions listed above, the City will continue to partner with nonprofit agencies to host a yearly Housing Fair to provide residents with access to developers, BMR managers, and housing agencies and programs. The City will also continue to leverage its BMR AHF to assist Page 36 of 44 nonprofit affordable housing developers. Discussion Please see discussion above. Page 37 of 44 Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) Introduction Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $7,944 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan $0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. $0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income $7,944 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities $0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income 100% 3. Overall Benefit – A consecutive period of one, two, or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70 percent of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years that include this Annual Action Plan 2018 Discussion Please see discussion above. Page 38 of 44 Appendix A: Areas of Minority and LMI Concentration Map Page 39 of 44 Appendix B: Public Comments City of Cupertino Citizen Participation Comments FY 2017/2018 Annual Action Plan There were no comments received during the public review period. Page 40 of 44 Appendix C: Public Hearing Notice Page 41 of 44 Appendix D: Application for Federal Assistance Form SF-424 Page 42 of 44 Page 43 of 44 Page 44 of 44 Appendix E: Certifications CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2723 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/6/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Consider whether to authorize the formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications for the three proposals received in the 2017 Second Cycle including: 16A - Hotel at Cupertino Village site; 16B - Hotel at Good Year Tire store site; and 16C - Mixed-use development at the Oaks Shopping Center. Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Cover Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - CC Resolution No. 15-078 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject:Consider whether to authorize the formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications for the three proposals received in the 2017 Second Cycle including:16A -Hotel at Cupertino Village site;16B -Hotel at Good Year Tire store site;and 16C -Mixed-use development at the Oaks Shopping Center. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No.17-072 (Attachment A)after determining if the application(s)is/are authorized to move forward to apply for a General Plan Amendment(s) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject Consider whether to authorize the formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications for the three proposals received in the 2017 Second Cycle including: 16A - Hotel at Cupertino Village site; 16B – Hotel at Good Year Tire store site; and 16C – Mixed- use development at the Oaks Shopping Center. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 17-____ (Attachment A) after determining if the application is authorized to move forward to apply for General Plan Amendments. Discussion Background On September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future General Plan Amendments (see Attachment B.) City Council authorization is required prior to allowing submission of an application for General Plan Amendments and staff commencing environmental and project review. The new procedures provide the following benefits over the previous process whereby the General Plan amendments were processed as they were received:  Provide the ability to achieve orderly development of the City through a managed process;  Ensure that additional development can achieve/improve facility service and quality of life standard for the community;  Provide opportunity for early community input;  Consider impact on staff and other resources. Pursuant to the new procedures, the City Council evaluates General Plan Amendment proposals as follows prior to determining whether to authorize or not:  GPA applications would be considered by the Council twice every year;  The Council may allow applications to be re-considered at a continued hearing by the City Council to submit revisions/additional information within 30 days.  Applications that are rejected would wait for a year before re-applying (i.e. they would not be allowed to re-apply in the six-month subsequent cycle). The deadline to apply for consideration in the 2017 Second Cycle by the City Council was May 15, 2017. The City received three applications for authorization for General Plan amendments. These include proposals for: 1. A hotel at Cupertino Village (at the Duke of Edinburgh and adjacent commercial building), 2. A hotel at the Good Year Tire site (next to Homestead Square) and 3. Two mixed-use alternatives to replace the Oaks Shopping Center (at Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard). Attachments 16A, 16B and 16C analyze each of the proposals based on the following evaluation criteria set forth in the procedures adopted by the Council. Evaluation Criteria Based on the criteria in the policy adopted by the City Council on September 1, 2015, the project has been evaluated based on:  General Plan goals achieved by the project: o Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility – does the project exhibit superior quality of site layout and project design? Is the project compatible with the surrounding uses? o Net fiscal impacts, including a diverse economic base – would the project have positive or negative one-time and ongoing impacts to the City’s fiscal base? o Provision of affordable housing – does the project provide or otherwise promote affordable housing above and beyond typical City requirements? o Environmental sustainability – to what extent does the project include features including green building, site design and project operation principles, that promote environmental sustainability above and beyond the City’s typical requirements?  General Plan amendments requested – number and type of General Plan amendments requested by the applicant.  Proposed voluntary community amenities  Staff time and resources required to process the project – would the amount of staff time and resources require hiring of staff or consultants to process the project? It should be noted that applicants would be required to pay the full cost of processing the project, including staff and consultant time and materials. Public Noticing and Outreach The following table indicates the public noticing and outreach conducted on the General Plan authorization process as required by the procedures adopted by the City Council. Noticing, Site Signage Agenda  Postcard mailed to all postal customers in the City of Cupertino and within 500 feet of subject property (including adjacent cities) if within 500 feet of city boundary (at least 10 days prior to meeting)  Site signage on subject property (at least 10 days prior to meeting)  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (at least five days prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (at least five days week prior to the hearing) Additional outreach has been conducted on the City’s Social Media platforms and advertising on the City Channel. Comments, if received, have been attached to each individual analysis. Environmental Impact The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply since the City Council’s action, consideration and authorization of formal applications, is not a project as defined by CEQA. However, project level environmental review will be conducted for the projects that are authorized to move forward with applications for General Plan Amendments. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact for each proposal has been discussed in each individual staff report (Attachment 16A, 16B and 16C.) Next Steps Projects authorized by the Council to move forward will enter the formal development review process including necessary environmental analysis. The timeline for the projects will begin when the applications are complete and are expected to run about 7-9 months. Projects additionally have the option to resubmit their application with minor adjustments based on Council input within 30 days of this Council meeting. These modifications will be presented at a subsequent meeting later in fall 2017. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. Resolution No.17-______ A Resolution determining whether to authorize applicants to submit General Plan amendment applications B. City Council policy for General Plan Amendment application procedures 16A. Staff Report for Cupertino Village site (hotel) 16A.1 - Proposed Plans and Project Description for Cupertino Village site 16A.2 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Cupertino Village site dated July 18, 2017 16B. Staff Report for Good Year Tire site (hotel) 16B.1 - Proposed Plans and Project Description for Good Year Tire site 16B.2 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Good Year Tire site, dated July 21, 2017 16B.3 – Letter submitted by Mr. John Vidovich, dated July 24, 2017 16B.4 - North De Anza Gateway Initiative Text 16C. Staff Report for Oaks Shopping Center (Westport) 16C.1 - Alternative 1 (mixed-use residential) proposed plans 16C.2 - Alternative 2 (mixed-use gateway) proposed plans 16C.3 - Project narrative and other materials 16C.4 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Oaks Shopping Center dated July 17, 2017 16C.5 - Comments from the public as of July 25, 2017 RESOLUTION NO. 17- OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO (APPROVING/DENYING) AUTHORIZATION OF PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS TO PROCEED AS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No: GPAAuth-2017-01; GPAAuth-2017-02, GPAAuth-2017-03 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: 10931 N. De Anza Blvd., 10765 N. Wolfe Road, 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd. APN(s): 326-10-061; 316-45-017; 326-27-039, -040, and -041 WHEREAS, on September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future General Plan amendments, including to review prospective applications twice a year and decide which are authorized to proceed as a General Plan Amendment application; and WHEREAS, the City Council decision to authorize one or more applicants to proceed with a General Plan amendment application, does not in any way presume approval of any proposed amendment or project; and WHEREAS, the City received three applications by May 15, 2017, the deadline to be considered in the 2017 Second Cycle of the General Plan Amendment application review process; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing to consider said General Plan Amendment authorization applications; and WHEREAS, the proposed Resolution is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Resolution is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted criteria for determining whether an application will be authorized for processing as follows: a. General Plan goals achieved by the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the following: Resolution No. August 1, 2017 Page 2 (i) Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility; (ii) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other revenue provided by the project), including the extent to which the project would diversify the City’s economic base; (iii) The provision of affordable housing; and (iv) Environmental Sustainability. b. General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested. c. Proposed voluntary community amenities, defined as (i) school resources, (ii) public open space, such as parks and trails, (iii) public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility systems and (iv) Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit centers/stations d. Staff time and resources required to process the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony, staff reports, public comments, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has determined that the following proposals are (authorized/not authorized) to proceed as General Plan Amendment applications: 1. (List Applications here based on whether approved or not) PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 1st day of August 2017, by the following roll call vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ _______________________ Grace Schmidt Savita Vaidhyanathan City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 15-078 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014, the City Council adopted an amended General Plan titled Community Vision 2040, which reflects community input, regulatory changes, best practices, and the desire to achieve community-building, sustainability, economic, and fiscal objectives; and WHEREAS, the City has been evaluating various programs to manage development to address development issues in light of concerns about rapid growth and the impacts of such growth overwhelming the City's ability to accommodate it, as well as the substantial impacts of development on quality of life in the community; and WHEREAS, as part of its evaluation process, the City has considered Community Business Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) and Growth Management programs; and WHEREAS, while CBIZ and Growth Management programs can be effective in metering growth and providing for community benefits, they can be difficult to administer, are limited by legal requirements and do not provide the flexibility for managing growth and its substantial impacts on the community; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358( a) provides that: "If it deems it to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan. An amendment to the general plan shall be initiated in the manner specified by the legislative body ... . ";and WHEREAS, each mandatory element of the City's General Plan may be amended no more than four times during any calendar year and, subject to that limitation, "an amendment may be made at any time, as determined by the legislative body" (Cal. Gov. Code 65358(b)); and WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code does not address the timing or initiation of general plan amendments; and WHEREAS, rather than pursue a CBIZ or Growth Management program, the City desires to set forth an orderly process, in accordance with its legislative discretion, to consider General Plan amendments and ensure that proposals are fairly considered in light of the City's goals and concerns about growth; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment Procedures to provide a process for preliminary review of proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed procedures on May 19, 2015, and the Council directed staff to provide more information and options at a future meeting; and WHEREAS, the City held an Open House on the General Plan Amendment Process on June 30, 2015, and the City Council held a Study Session after the Open House; and Resolution No. 15-078 Page2 WHEREAS, at the Study Session, the Council directed staff to look at options that allowed for applications twice a year and that provided a reevaluation process; and WHEREAS, the procedures include, among other things: (1) notice provisions to ensure the public has an opportunity to comment; (2) evaluation criteria to ensure general plan amendments that move through the application process are in the public interest and meet the City's goals for development, including provision of community amenities; and (3) requirements for requesting preliminary review of a proposed General Plan amendment; and . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby adopts the General Plan Amendment Procedures attached hereto, subject to minor revisions as may be made by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney. The City Council hereby authorizes City staff to process proposed General Plan amendments in accordance with the General Plan Amendment Procedures and to take any and all other actions necessary to implement the procedures. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, the 1st day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council Sinks, Chang, Vaidhyanathan Paul, Wong None None Grace Schmidt, City Clerk APPROVED: Rod Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino Resolution No. 15-078 Page3 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS 1. Background/Goals Like many communities throughout the State, Cupertino is concerned about balancing the benefits of economic development with the effects of rapid growth. The impacts of such growth can overwhelm the City's ability to accommodate it and affect the quality of life in the community. The goal is to create a procedure for the consideration of future General Plan amendments that will encourage orderly development of the City and ensure that facility/service and quality of life standards can be met for the community. These procedures only address amendments requested by private parties. The City may initiate General Plan amendments when it deems necessary, such as, to conform to State law or to ensure consistency within the General Plan. 2. Procedure a. The Council will consider the timing and processing of General Plan amendments twice a year, approximately every six months. b. In order to be considered for processing, applicants will be required to apply for authorization to process a General Plan amendment by a designated date. c. In the quarter following the due date (generally), the Council will hold a publicly noticed meeting to preliminarily review the list of proposed General Plan amendments. d. Noticing-City-wide postcard and public meeting requirements. e. Each application will be preliminarily evaluated for the following: (i) General Plan goals achieved by the project including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility (2) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other revenue provided by the project) including a diverse economic base (3) The provision of affordable housing ( 4) Environmental Sustainability (ii) General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested. (iii) Proposed voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3, if any. (iv) Staff time and resources required to process the project. f. Based on the above evaluation the Council will consider which projects, if any, will be authorized to proceed with a General Plan amendment application. The decision does not in any way presume approval of the amendment or project. It only authorizes staff to process the application, but the City retains its discretion to consider the application in accordance with all applicable laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act Resolution No. 15-078 Page4 (" CEQA") and the City's zoning laws and ordinances. Consideration of the application will be in accordance with the City's Municipal Code and regulations. g. Staff will begin processing the General Plan amendment applications per Council direction. A project that applies for processing should be in substantial compliance with the project authorized by Council. h. Proposals not authorized by the Council at the first meeting (per 2.c. above) may be resubmitted with minor amendments within 30 days. Such projects will be considered by the Council at a future public meeting, noticed per the Cupertino Municipal Code, after staff review. 3. Voluntary Community Amenities a. For purposes of this policy, voluntary community amenities are defined as facilities, land and/or funding contributions to ensure that any development with a General Plan amendment application enhances the quality of life in the City, including enhancements of the following: (i) School resources (ii) Public open space, such as parks and trails (iii) Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility systems (iv) Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit centers/stations 4. Preliminary Review Requirements a. Preliminary documents that would be typically required for the type of application that is requested, such as site plans, preliminary landscape plans, elevations, cross sections, preliminary grading plans and proposed materials. b. A description, including graphics, of the General Plan amendment(s) and land use approvals required, if any. The description should include diagrammatic information as necessary to clearly explain the request. c. An explanation of how the proposed project meets the overall goals of the General Plan and the benefits/impacts of the project to the community and its quality of life. d. A brief summary of net fiscal impacts. e. In order to provide the public with early notice and opportunity to provide input, to the extent the proposed project includes voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3 above, of a type typically memorialized in a development agreement, the applicant should include a Term Sheet explaining the proposed terms. The Term Sheet will be memorialized in a Development Agreement as part of the project, if approved. CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2836 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/21/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: A proposal to demolish two commercial buildings and construct a new full-service boutique hotel with 185 rooms and conference space and restaurant at the Cupertino Village that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2017-03; Applicant: Michael Strahs (Kimco Realty); Location: 10765 N. Wolfe Road; APN(s): 316-45-017) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:16A - Staff Report for Cupertino Village site (hotel) 16A.1 - Proposed Plans and Project Description 16A.2 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Cupertino Village site Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:A proposal to demolish two commercial buildings and construct a new full-service boutique hotel with 185 rooms and conference space and restaurant at the Cupertino Village that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2017-03; Applicant: Michael Strahs (Kimco Realty); Location: 10765 N. Wolfe Road; APN(s): 316-45-017) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject A proposal to demolish two commercial buildings and construct a new full-service boutique hotel with 185 rooms and conference space and restaurant at the Cupertino Village that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPA Auth-2017-03; Applicant: Michael Strahs (Kimco Realty); Location: 10765 N. Wolfe Road; APN(s): 316-45-017). Recommended Action Determine if the proposal is authorized to move forward to apply for the proposed General Plan Amendments. Discussion Background As previously stated, on September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future General Plan Amendments. Additional details on the process are available in the cover staff report for this item. The Analysis section below reviews the project based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the procedures adopted by the Council. Analysis Introduction The proposed redevelopment is for a portion of the Cupertino Village shopping center currently occupied by two retail buildings. The authorization request is for a General Plan Amendment application to facilitate the development of a new 185-room, five-story hotel, measuring approximately 60 feet in height, with a 2,502-square-foot restaurant, and 5,568 square feet of meeting space (see Attachment 16A.1). Project Location and Surrounding Uses The project is located on an approximately 1.72 acre site on the west side of N. Wolfe Road between Pruneridge Avenue and Homestead Road in the North Vallco Gateway within the North Vallco Park Special Area. The General Plan identifies this area as a mixed-use corridor with a neighborhood center. The North Vallco Special Area allows a mix of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses along North Wolfe Road between Highway 280 and Homestead Road. The site currently hosts the Duke of Edinburgh Pub and Restaurant that measures 3,385 square feet, and 10,044 square feet of empty commercial space. Access to the site is provided via a driveway between Cupertino Village Shopping Center and the project site, and a driveway off Pruneridge Avenue. Surrounding uses include the existing Cupertino Village shopping center to the north, a three-story apartment complex on a partially-submerged podium, measuring approximately 45 feet, to the west, a five-story hotel, measuring approximately 55 feet, to the south, and the new Apple Campus to the east across North Wolfe Road. Project Data Table 1 below indicates the proposed project data along with requested General Plan amendments, or variances, requested and/or required. Figure 1: Rendering of proposal. Note: For illustrative purposes only. May change upon further review. Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required/ Existing Proposed Comments General Plan designation Commercial/Residential No change - Zoning designation P (CG, Res) – Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses No change Hotel uses permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Development allocation Hotel None available 185 rooms GPA requested. Commercial Existing – 13,429 s.f. 8,070 s.f. No allocation needed. Restaurant 3,385 2,502 s.f Conference Facilities - 5,568 s.f. Height 60 feet 60 feet - Slope line from the face of curb (setback : height) 1:1 1:1 - Setbacks Front No specific setbacks required (other than General Plan slope line requirements. Other setback requirements include: − Insure sufficient space for adequate light, air and visibility at intersections; − Assure general conformity to yard requirements of adjacent or nearby zones, lot or parcels; − Promote excellence in development. 50 feet 6 inches (60 feet from face of curb) The Planned Development zoning district allows deviation from development standards. However, projects are required to meet strict findings of high quality, context and relationship with adjacent properties in addition to other issues. Side (North) No specific side or rear yard setbacks required unless lot abuts any residential or agricultural—residential zone. The project site does not abut a residential or agricultural zone. 12 feet 6 inches Side (South) 10 feet 6 inches Rear 90 feet Table 1: Cupertino Village Project Data Building area Existing – 13,429 s.f. Proposed – 122,519 s.f. - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.17 FAR 1.63 FAR No specific requirements. Lot coverage Existing – 15% Proposed – 34.1% No specific requirements. However, projects have to comply with C.3 (storm water treatment requirements) Parking Vehicles - 1/room + 1/employee 251 spaces 251 spaces Consistent with City requirements Bikes – 1/20,000 sq. ft. 7 0 Project will have to meet or exceed Bike parking requirements Evaluation Criteria Discussion The following is a discussion of the project relative to the evaluation criteria established by City Council procedure for General Plan Amendment authorization requests. For details on the criteria, please see the Cover Report. Site and Architectural Design and Neighborhood Compatibility It should be noted that at this time, the design is not being reviewed and will likely need to be modified to ensure architectural and site plan expectations of high quality, consistency with applicable regulations and requirements from different departments and agencies. The comments below provide a high level review of the project.  While the project seeks to activate the frontage along North Wolfe Road through the incorporation of outdoor seating for the restaurant as well as meeting room break-out areas, additional interior modifications will be required to ensure that inactive uses are moved away from the central lobby area facing the street. Access to the restaurant is provided through the interior of the hotel as well as from a walkway adjacent to the face of the property along North Wolfe Road that also connects the outdoor restaurant seating and outdoor meeting room break-out area. By maintaining a portion of the existing trees along the street frontage, a buffer is provided for the outdoor uses. The property also seeks to utilize a portion of the rooftop as an outdoor rooftop bar that will require additional review and entitlements. In addition, the design would be Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required/ Existing Proposed Comments required to activate the area between the shopping center and the hotel to create a strong pedestrian linkage to the retail uses and a cohesive site design.  The height of the building and number of stores is similar to that of the surrounding properties with the exception of the existing buildings at the Cupertino Village Shopping Center. However, the overall design of the building and materials will be reviewed and may need additional revisions to meet the high quality expectations through the design and planning review process.  The project provides the potential to reevaluate circulation in the project vicinity in the interests of enhancing circulation efficiency. The current location of the north driveway is at a location that is inefficient. Design alternatives that may be studied include: o An alternative to widen and move the north driveway southward to align with the Apple campus driveway to allow full access to the site at a controlled intersection. This alternative may consider narrowing Pruneridge Avenue; and, o Closure of the northern driveway to address illegal left-turn concerns.  Circulation of the site will require further examination. The service dock location may create conflicts in terms of circulation with the adjacent property. Net Fiscal Impacts  The applicant has estimated a total annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue to the City in the amount of $2,255,875 with an 80% occupancy rate. However, a fiscal analysis prepared by EPS, the City’s third-party consulting firm, estimates a more conservative net revenue to the City’s General Fund of between $1.2-1.8 million based on a 70% occupancy rate and an average room rate of between $200 and $300 per night (Attachment 16A.2).  Existing uses on site create a net positive fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund of about $12,000 per year. The analysis assumes that the vacant retail spaces can be re- tenanted and occupied.  The proposed project could help diversify the City’s economic base and capture a greater share of business travelers visiting the Apple Campus 2 directly across N. Wolfe Road. Provision of Affordable Housing  The proposal does not include any affordable housing. However, the applicant will be required to pay any applicable housing mitigation fees. Environmental Sustainability  The project will be required to extend a reclaimed water main from the intersection of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road to Pruneridge Avenue, and incorporate the use of reclaimed water for the project’s irrigation and toilet flushing.  The proposed shuttle service for guests would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions. This type of service is typical of a hotel and would possibly be a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation measure for hotel guests. However, the proposed expansion of use to the nearby residents and the general public, subject to availability, would help to further reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions and may be considered a project amenity. In addition, the hotel offers to provide an annual contribution toward the operation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) and a community shuttle service, if and when the City decides to move forward with such a program. A number of other projects including the Marina and Hamptons will be contributing to such a program.  A TDM program would likely be required as a mitigation measure as part of approval of the project. The TDM program could include services for guests such as pre-loaded clipper cars for transit access, a car share program, and a bike share program. For hotel employees, TDM strategies could include subsidized transit passes, cash allowances for not using single-occupancy vehicles, and an emergency ride home program.  The project will be required to achieve a LEED Silver, or Alternative Reference Standard, consistent with the City’s requirements. Sustainability features such as using environmentally-preferable building products, solar hot water panels, and electric vehicle charging stations proposed by the project will assist in meeting this requirement. The Council could require the project to meet a higher LEED certification as part of the community benefits strategy. General Plan Amendments Requested The applicant is requesting one general plan amendment for the proposed project – an increase in the General Plan hotel allocation of 185 rooms (where currently none are available). Voluntary Community Amenities Proposed Table 2 below lists the proposed community amenities by the applicant and staff’s analysis of the proposal. Table 2: Proposed Voluntary Community Amenities Categories Proposed Beneficiary Value Comments School resources Non-paid educational internship N/A $0 Cannot be accurately quantified due to lack of program details and interest. Public open space None N/A $0 See Community Amenity Funding item for additional information. Public Facilities Complementary use of conference and meeting space to certain groups (subject to availability) City of Cupertino, qualified non- profits, school association and other similar community- serving groups $0 The value of the proposed amenity cannot be accurately quantified due to the lack of program details. See Community Amenity Funding item for additional information. Transportation Facilities Extended hotel-run shuttle services Guests and general public when available $0 Cannot be accurately quantified due the lack of program details and uncertainty of availability. See Community Amenity Funding item for additional information. Transportation Facilities Annual membership in the local Transportation Management Agency (TMA) City of Cupertino $10,000/yr The value the amenity would only be realized once a TMA has been established. Community Amenity Funding Flexible Community Amenity Funding to any of the following: transportation facilities, TMA, public facilities and public open space. City of Cupertino $1.85 million Applicant requests that these funds be spent in the vicinity of the Cupertino Village shopping center. Categories Proposed Beneficiary Value Comments Other Seek out and give preferential treatment to Cupertino residents for Front-of-House and Back-of-House positions. City of Cupertino $0 Cannot be accurately quantified due to lack of program details and interest. Other Local Negotiated Rates (LNRs) for dignitaries visiting Cupertino for governmental or cultural business (subject to availability). City of Cupertino $0 Cannot be accurately quantified due to lack of program details and interest. Total Value of Qualified Amenities $1.85 million + $10,000/yr Total Value/square foot $15.09 + $0.08/yr As part of the community amenities, the applicant proposes to enter into a five -year Development Agreement with the City. The terms of this agreement and amenities would be refined during the entitlement process should the project be authorized for a Gener al Plan Amendment. Staff Time and Resources The Planning Division will dedicate a project manager (either staff or consultant based on availability) to guide the project through the entitlement process appropriate environmental and city related reviews. It is estimated that approximately 0.3 FTE hours will be required for processing this application. Staff time and consultant costs will be paid for by the applicant. Public Noticing and Outreach See Cover Report for details on noticing and outreach. As of publication of this staff report on July 25, 2017, staff has received no comments regarding the proposal. Fiscal Impact The project net fiscal impact to the City’s budget has been discussed previously in the “Net Fiscal Impacts” section above. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Erick Serrano, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: 16A.1 - Proposed Plans and Project Description for Cupertino Village site 16A.2 - Fiscal Analysis prepared by Economics and Planning Systems, Inc for Cupertino Village site Architects & Planners 170 Maiden Lane San Francisco California 94108 Telephone 415.391.1080 design@hwiarchitects.com Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel CONCEPT DESIGN PACKAGE May 12, 2017 CUPERTINO VILLAGE LP Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Table of Contents CUPERTINO VILLAGE BOUTIQUE HOTEL CONCEPT DESIGN PACKAGE May 12, 2017 VICINITY MAP 4 OVERALL SITE PLAN 6 SITE PHOTOS/CONTEXT View North 8 View Northeast 9 View East 10 PLANS Site Plan/Roof Plan 12 Parking Levels B1, B2 13 Ground/Arrival Level 14 Level 2 15 Guestroom Levels 3 & 4 16 Guestroom Level 5 17 Preliminary Landscape Concept Plan 18 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS North and East 20 South and West 21 COLOR/MATERIAL BOARD 23 SITE/BUILDING SECTIONS AA/East-West 25 BB/North-South 26 3D PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Aerial Perspective View 28 Arrival Court View 29 N. Wolfe View Looking West 30 View Looking South 31 PROJECT AREA SUMMARY 33 CIVIL DRAWINGS C1.1 Topographic Survey 35 C2.1 Preliminary Grading 36 C2.2 Preliminary Sections 37 C3.1 Storm Water Control Plan 38 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 3 Vicinity Map All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Vicinity Map/Project Site/Aerial Context 4Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Vicinity Map N Pruneridge Avenue E. Homestead Road Int e r s t a t e 2 8 0 Cupertino Village Apple Park Marriott Courtyard Hilton Garden Inn Arioso Apartments Arioso ApartmentsLinet LaneProject Site N. Wolfe RoadE. Homestead Road N. Wolfe Road Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 5 Overall Site Plan All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Vicinity Map/Project Site/Aerial Context 6Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Overall Site Plan: Cupertino Village Mixed-Use Figure LU-2, Chapter 3: Land Use And Community Design Element . general plan (community vision 2015- 2040) General Plan Land Use Designation: North Vallco Gateway, North Vallco Park Special Area, West of Wolfe Road- Commercial/ Residential City of Cupertino Zoning Map Zoning Designation: Mixed Use Planned Development- General Commercial (CG), Residential (Res). (E) Building 3 N. Wolfe Road (E) Building 4 (E) Building 2 Retail B East Homestead RoadPruneridge AvenueLinnet Avenue Lark Ln.Parnell Pl.Existing Apartments (E) Building 5 (E) Building 1 Retail AHotel N60120240 Scale: 1”=60’ (E) Parking Newly Constructed 2014/2015 Newly Constructed 2014/2015 Newly Constructed 2014/2015 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 7 Site Photos/Context All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Site Photos/Context 8Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Site View: North All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Site Photos/Context 9Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Site View: Northeast All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Site Photos/Context 10Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Site View: East Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 11 Plans All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Preliminary Landscape Plan 12Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Pruneridge Avenue Site Plan/Roof Plan N. Wolf RoadN204080 Scale: 1”=20’ Area for Solar Hot Water Panels Area for Solar Hot Water Panels Outdoor Rooftop Bar Rooftop Appurtenance (Mechanical) All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Floor Plans 13Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Table 19.124.040: Regulations for Off- Street Parking of Cupertino, CA Municipal Code A. Parking Ratio for CG Zones and Motel/Hotel/Lodging Land Use: 1/unit + 1/employee. Uni-size Stall Dimensions (185 Units x 1) + (66 Employees x 1) = 251 Parking Stalls Required Bicycle Parking: 1/20,000 sq. ft. Class II N204080 Scale: 1”=20’ Floor Plan: Basement Parking Levels (B1, B2) Level B-1 = 114 Cars Level B-2 = 126 Cars 240 Cars in Underground Garage +11 On-Grade Cars 251 Parking Stalls Provided Parking Access Ramp Service Elevator Core Passenger Elevator Core Head-In Parking Stalls 8.5’X18’ Electric Vehicle Charging Stations All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Floor Plans 14Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 N204080 Scale: 1”=20’ Floor Plan: Ground Level Lobby/Reception Restaurant/Bar Passenger Core East Meeting Rooms Banquet Capacity 192 Occupants Lecture Capacity 410 Occupants Restaurant Entrance Storage Back of House Arrival/Porte Cochere Garage Ramp West Meeting Rooms Banquet Capacity 180 Occupants Lecture Capacity 385 Occupants Property Line Back-of-House Lobby/Entry/ Circulation Meeting Space Restaurant/Bar All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Floor Plans 15Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 N204080 Scale: 1”=20’ Floor Plan: Level 2 Fitness Service/Housekeeping Passenger Core Back-of-House Mechanical Guestrooms Guestrooms Back-of-House Fitness Circulation All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Floor Plans 16Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 T/E T/E N204080 Scale: 1”=20’ 52 Modules/Level Service/Housekeeping Passenger Elevator Core Typical Guestroom Module 12-6”X27-0” Floor Plan: Typical Guestroom Level (3,4) Guestrooms Guestrooms Guestrooms All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Floor Plans 17Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 T/E N204080 Scale: 1”=20’ 52 Modules/Level Service/Housekeeping Passenger Elevator Core Typical Guestroom Module 12-6”X27-0” Floor Plan: Level 5 Guestrooms Guestrooms Guestrooms All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Preliminary Landscape Plan 18Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Pruneridge Avenue BUILDING FOOTPRINT SITE AREA NOT COVERED BY BUILDING TOTAL LOT AREA 25575 SF (34% OF LOT AREA) 49404-SF 74979-SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT SITE AREA NOT COVERED BY BUILDING TOTAL LOT AREA 25575 SF (34% OF LOT AREA) 49404-SF 74979-SF Preliminary Landscape Concept Plan RestaurantOutdoor Dining Arrival/Porte Cochere Ramp to Underground Parking Garage Parking N. Wolf RoadN204080 Scale: 1”=20’ Bike Share Racks Service Dock Meeting Room Break-Out Area Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 19 Elevations All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Elevations 20Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 North East Elevations: North and East 20 40 80 Scale: 1”=20’ All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Elevations 21Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Elevations: South and West South West 20 40 80 Scale: 1”=20’ Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 22 Color/Material Board All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Color/Material 23Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Color/Material Board Ceramic Plank WallsAlternate Wall Panel Glass Mullion Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 24 Sections All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Sections 25Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Section: AA N 30 60 Scale: 1”=15’ 15 AA Table 19.60.060: Development Standards of Cupertino, CA Municipal Code C. Required Setbacks for Buildings and enclosed Patio/ Atrium Space 1. Front Yard- Established based upon special policies contained in the General Plan and/ or applicable specific plan… (See excerpt below from General Plan). 2. Minimum Side and Rear Yard- No side or rear yard setback required unless lot abuts residential or agricultural- residential zone in which case the following regulations apply: b) Rear Yard Setback 20 feet, or a total setback equal to one and one- half feet of additional setback for each foot of height of a commercial building measured from its eave line or top of parapet, whichever is more restrictive. Figure LU-2, Chapter 3: Land Use And Community Design Element . general plan (community vision 2015- 2040) “North Vallco Gateway West of Wolfe Road: Maximum Height 60 feet” “For the North and South Vallco Park areas maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope drawn from Wolfe Road and Tantau avenue curb line.” “Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated height limitations if they are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets.” Pruneridge Avenue All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Sections 26Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 30 60 Scale: 1”=15’ 15 N Table 19.60.060: Development Standards of Cupertino, CA Municipal Code C. Required Setbacks for Buildings and enclosed Patio/ Atrium Space 1. Front Yard- Established based upon special policies contained in the General Plan and/ or applicable specific plan… (See excerpt below from General Plan). 2. Minimum Side and Rear Yard- No side or rear yard setback required unless lot abuts residential or agricultural- residential zone in which case the following regulations apply: b) Rear Yard Setback 20 feet, or a total setback equal to one and one- half feet of additional setback for each foot of height of a commercial building measured from its eave line or top of parapet, whichever is more restrictive. Figure LU-2, Chapter 3: Land Use And Community Design Element . general plan (community vision 2015- 2040) “North Vallco Gateway West of Wolfe Road: Maximum Height 60 feet” “For the North and South Vallco Park areas maintain the primary building bulk below a 1:1 slope drawn from Wolfe Road and Tantau avenue curb line.” “Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop mechanical equipment and utility structures may exceed stipulated height limitations if they are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets.” Section: BB BBPruneridge Avenue Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 27 Renderings/Perspective Views All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Renderings 28Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Aerial Perspective View All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Renderings 29Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 Arrival Court View All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Renderings 30Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 N. Wolfe View Looking West All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Renderings 31Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 View Looking South Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 32 Project Area Summary All drawings and written material herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the architect and/or the architect’s affiliates and may not be duplicated, used, or disclosed without the prior written consent of the architect. © Hornberger + Worstell, Inc. Project Area Summary 33Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 PARKING GARAGE LEVELS NSF GSF B1 44328 B2 44328 TOTAL OF GARAGE LEVELS 88656 Level B-1 =114 Cars Level B-2 =126 Cars On-Grade= 11 Cars TOTAL 251 cars HOTEL LEVELS LEVEL 1 RESTAURANT 2502 MEETING 5568 SUPPORT 9990 CIRCULATION 6546 TOTAL 25575 LEVEL 2 FITNESS 1502 GUESTROOMS 12935 SUPPORT 4914 CIRCULATION 3570 TOTAL 24236 LEVEL 3 GUESTROOMS 17874 SUPPORT 1405 CIRCULATION 3634 TOTAL 24236 17874 1405 3634 24236 17874 1405 3634 24236 122519 LEVEL 4 GUESTROOMS SUPPORT CIRCULATION TOTAL LEVEL 5 GUESTROOMS SUPPORT CIRCULATION TOTAL TOTAL OF HOTEL LEVELS OPTIONAL ROOFTOP BAR Up to Approx. 3600 SF Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel | Cupertino, California Concept Design Package - 05.12.17 34 Civil Engineering Drawings PRUNERIDGE AVENUE WOLFE ROADC1L7C1.1PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1" = 20'OF _ SHEETSSHEETNO.REVISION NO.BY REVISION BY CUPERTINO,05/11/2017DATESCALESURVEYORJOB NO. A07208-1JDTOF FOR CUPERTINO VILLAGE KIMCO CALIFORNIADRAWN BYTBk w KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2850 Collier Canyon Road Phone (925) 245-8788 Livermore, California 94551 Fax (925) 245-8796 NORTHNOTESABBREVIATIONSLEGENDGROSS AREA = 74,979 SFNET AREA = 74,979 SF(FF =167.41)(FF =167.70)05/10/17 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE WOLFE ROADFF=166.50FF=166.50FF=166.50PROGRESS SETLEGENDC2.1PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN MAY, 2017OF 35 SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO. A07208-1 NO.REVISION NO.BY REVISION BY KIMCO CUPERTINO VILLAGE SMCCUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA FOR OF k w KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2850 Collier Canyon Road Phone (925) 245-8788 Livermore, California 94551 Fax (925) 245-8796 NORTH33 PROGRESS SETC2.2PRELIMINARY SECTIONS MAY, 2017OF 35 SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO. A07208-1 NO.REVISION NO.BY REVISION BY KIMCO CUPERTINO VILLAGE SMCCUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA FOR OF k w KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2850 Collier Canyon Road Phone (925) 245-8788 Livermore, California 94551 Fax (925) 245-8796 ASECTIONBSECTIONCSECTION34 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE WOLFE ROADDMA 1DMA 2DMA 3DMA 3LEGENDC3.1STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN 1" = 20'MAY, 2017OF 35 SHEETSSHEETDATESCALEDESIGNERJOB NO. A07208-1 NO.REVISION NO.BY REVISION BY KIMCO CUPERTINO VILLAGE SMCCUPERTINO,CALIFORNIA FOR OF k w KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 2850 Collier Canyon Road Phone (925) 245-8788 Livermore, California 94551 Fax (925) 245-8796PROGRESS SETNORTHPLANTERABIO-FILTRATION SITE DATA35 Cupertino Village Shopping Center Hotel Addition, 10765-10801 N Wolfe Rd, Cupertino, CA 95014 Comprehensive Project Description May 12, 2017 Kimco Realty Corporation ("Kimco"), on behalf of Cupertino Village, LP (the “Owner”), is pleased to submit the attached GPA Authorization Application to the City for preliminary review of a proposed General Plan text amendment to provide for the hotel room allocation for a new boutique hotel to be located at 10765-10801 North Wolfe Road. Specifically, Kimco proposes that the City of Cupertino’s General Plan, Chapter 3, Table LU-1: Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040, be amended to increase the current allocation of hotel rooms in the North Vallco area by 185 rooms to allow for a new boutique hotel to be constructed on a portion of the existing Cupertino Village shopping center. Kimco, an NYSE-traded national Real Estate Investment Trust, has owned the Cupertino Village shopping center since 2005. The project site is located within the City's North Vallco Park Special Area, which is envisioned by the General Plan to "become a sustainable office and campus environment surrounded by a mix of connected, high-quality and pedestrian-oriented neighborhood center, hotel, and residential uses." The proposed hotel project is consistent with the underlying General Plan and zoning designations for the project site (see General Plan Policy LU-20.1 ["Retail and hotel uses are allowed on the west side of Wolfe Road."]), and will adhere to the existing height, setback, density, and other development standards set forth in the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance. The proposed project consists of a new 5-story full-service “Upper Upscale” boutique hotel with approximately 251 parking stalls both below-grade and at street level. The hotel will also include reception areas, fitness and amenity facilities, and a 3-meal per day +/- 2,500 square foot restaurant, to be open to hotel guests, onsite catering and banquet opportunities and the general public. An outdoor patio adjacent to the restaurant is also anticipated. Approximately 5,500 square feet of meeting room, conference and banquet space is also planned, with estimated maximum capacities in the largest single assembled space up to +/- 190 occupants in a banquet format and +/- 400 in a lecture format, based on the currently planned configuration. The hotel is expected to total approximately 122,519 square feet (gross). The 2-level garage is expected to total approximately 88,656 square feet, all below-grade. Demolition of an existing 10,044 square foot one-story commercial building, an existing 3,385 square foot restaurant building and +/- 66 parking stalls will be necessary to facilitate the project. The hotel will be accessed from Wolfe Road primarily from Pruneridge Avenue, with the main entrance oriented toward the existing Arioso Apartments. Access from the main portion of the Cupertino Village shopping center will also be maintained. Loading will be handled on the north end of the building via dedicated loading facilities. The hotel room modules will be arranged in a horseshoe configuration, on levels 2-5. A complete concept design package and summary is included with the application. The hotel meets the overall goals of the General Plan and will provide a variety of benefits to the community:  Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility – The hotel is consistent with the existing land use designations for the site, and is compatible with the surrounding commercial and multi-family residential uses. The hotel is designed to create an attractive new gateway into the City of Cupertino, and to complement the iconic Apple Park facility located directly across Wolfe Road. The massing and articulation have modern, clean lines and the highest quality materials and colors. The ground level of the hotel is designed to create an active street edge whenever possible on all four sides of the building. Existing trees surrounding the site will be maintained wherever possible, and Kimco will attempt to relocate trees that cannot be retained in place, where practical. Kimco is also investigating the feasibility of including a viewing platform or rooftop lounge, which could offer the community another gathering spot and unparalleled views of Apple Park. The hotel is also a great complement to the existing portions of the Cupertino Village shopping center, which will share parking, vehicular and pedestrian connections, and shopping visits with its latest addition. The hotel’s scale does not overwhelm the existing +/- 56’ tall hotel use to the South, or the multi-story +/- 44’ tall apartments to its West. Kimco's +/- 25’ tall single story newly constructed “Retail A” shop building is located directly to the North of the project site, and to the South the Apple Park structure is across North Wolfe Road approximately 900’ away. Parking onsite will meet or exceed all City requirements, and the benefits from shared parking with the adjacent retail uses will further ensure cars will not overflow onto surrounding properties.  Fiscal impacts, including a diverse economic base – The project’s fiscal impacts are positive for the City of Cupertino. The hotel use will be a net positive revenue generator, generating transient occupancy tax, sales tax, and property taxes that will directly benefit the City’s General Fund and enhance the City’s budget. In contrast, the existing single level office, bank, salon and restaurant space proposed for demolition is generally antiquated and of limited potential for tax generation. The project also diversifies the City’s economic base by adding a new additional full- service hotel, which brings visitors, jobs and numerous other benefits, including reducing existing “leakage” of tax revenue from the City. Currently, the shortage of hotel rooms in Cupertino generates tax revenue for the benefit of adjacent jurisdictions, and it brings cars in from outside the city to access Cupertino companies. It should also be noted that Kimco recently invested more than $20 million in the property by adding 24,430 square feet of additional retail and restaurant space to Cupertino Village in two new shop buildings, and a new 240 stall parking garage at the rear of the site. Kimco is performing significant additional improvements to the shopping center’s courtyards and public areas during Summer 2017. The hotel project is the next phase of investment proposed by Kimco for the Cupertino Village shopping center property.  Provision of affordable housing – While the addition of the hotel doesn’t directly provide or promote affordable housing in Cupertino, it does provide a higher quality alternative to visitors who may consider short term vacation rentals in the area, which could help encourage those rental units to be added back into the longer-term housing and affordable housing inventories. The project will also pay the City’s affordable housing impact fees.  Environmental sustainability – Kimco will design the project to meet LEED/CalGreen silver standards, and will pursue LEED and CalGreen certifications for the project. Built with environmentally-preferable building products with a high-recycled content and efficient state of the art mechanical and utility systems, the project will adhere to the best practices that minimize its carbon footprint and maximize its sustainability across the relevant disciplines. Since the largest energy user in a hotel in the Northern California temperate climate zone is the generation of hot water, the hotel will be designed to feature solar hot water panels behind the parapet on the roof. The hotel will feature electric vehicle charging stations in the garage and permeable pavers or concrete in select areas outside. The hotel’s location directly across Wolfe Road from the Apple Park campus and adjacent and to the Cupertino Village shopping center will encourage pedestrian visits and shared trips to both locations, and the hotel will offer bicycle parking and bicycle sharing opportunities which will further reduce unnecessary motor vehicle trips. Shuttle service also is planned to be available to customers coming to and from the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport and to other major employment and destinations in the area. Subject to availability, the project anticipates allowing nearby residents and the general public to ride its shuttle service to and from the hotel. The hotel’s porte cochere will also be perfectly suited to taxi and ride-share trips, further reducing single occupancy vehicle trips on the Cupertino street grid. The hotel’s proximity to I-280 also will limit congestion on the Cupertino road network. Given the uses being replaced by the hotel, the preliminary traffic study for the project characterizes the project as essentially “traffic neutral from a capacity perspective.” The project will improve the overall quality of life for the residents of Cupertino by adding to the Wolfe Road gateway into the City, incorporating high quality design and landscape to enhance community identity and the pedestrian experience. The new, attractive, well-located, state of the art, boutique hotel will provide an exciting new hospitality option for residents’ friends and business visitors, and will supply badly needed conference and meeting space. The hotel project will be a fitting complement to the newest retail and restaurants added next door at the Cupertino Village shopping center, all at a net gain to the City’s supply of retail space. The transient occupancy tax revenue generated by the hotel will bolster the City’s finances by adding to the General Fund, with no impact on local schools, and its freeway-adjacent location and limited trips will mean few additional trips and essentially no impact to the traffic in the area. M EMORANDUM To: Erick Serrano, City of Cupertino From: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Subject: Fiscal Analysis of the Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel GPA Application; EPS #171072 Date: July 18, 2017 The City of Cupertino retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to prepare this fiscal impact analysis of an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The applicant is proposing an Upper Upscale boutique hotel on a 1.72-acre site located at 10765-10801 North Wolfe Road. The proposed development envisions a new five-story 185-room hotel with a 2,500-square-foot restaurant and additional meeting/banquet space. The EPS analysis assesses the effect of the proposed development on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund. The objective of the analysis is to quantify whether the proposed GPA will generate adequate revenues to cover the costs of providing ongoing services to associated new residents and employees. The analysis does not consider the impact of the proposal on potential capital facilities cost requirements or other one-time costs. The analysis compares the impact of the proposed GPA at buildout to the baseline impact of existing uses in the project area. This fiscal analysis is intended as a planning-level document to inform land use policy. EPS does not make tenant-specific assumptions as project tenants likely will change over time. The analysis is based on the City’s 2016-17 Adopted General Fund budget and presents findings in constant 2017 dollars. A summary of fiscal impact estimates attributable to proposed GPA is provided below. Actual fiscal impacts will depend on a number of factors that cannot be predicted with certainty, including the market performance of the project, future changes in City or State budgeting practices, and the efficiency of various City departments in providing services. Key analytical inputs and assumptions used in this analysis are from the GPA application, City documents, information from City staff, and EPS industry knowledge. Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 2 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Summary of Findings 1. The proposed hotel project will result in an annual net fiscal benefit to the City of Cupertino General Fund. This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the GPA proposal on the City’s General Fund is approximately $1.2 million to $1.8 million. Table 1 presents the estimated fiscal impact assuming the applicant’s anticipated average daily room rate of $300 per night. In this scenario, the net increase in General Fund revenues from the project at buildout is estimated at roughly $1.8 million more annually than existing uses. The net increase in General Fund expenditures associated with the Project is estimated at approximately $29,000 more per year than existing uses. Table 1 Fiscal Impact Summary (2017$) 2. At project buildout, transient occupancy tax will account for the largest revenue source to the City. The City of Cupertino currently levies a 12 percent transient occupancy tax (TOT) on room revenue generated by hotels in the City. The proposed 185 hotel rooms included in the GPA proposal are projected to generate over $14.2 million in annual room revenue, providing the City’s General Fund with an estimated $1.7 million in annual TOT revenue.1 If the average room rate is lower than the anticipated $300 per night, TOT revenue will be less. For example, an average room rate of $200 per night would generate an estimate $9.5 million in annual room revenue and $1.1 million in TOT revenue. Under this scenario, the project’s annual impact before consideration of baseline impacts on the General Fund would fall from $1.8 million to $1.2 million. Table 2 on the following page illustrates the differences in net fiscal impacts when reducing the daily room rate from $300 to $200.2 1 Although the applicant assumes that the hotel stabilizes at 80 percent occupancy EPS adjusted the occupancy rate to 70 percent to be conservative and consistent with fiscal analyses of other GPA proposals. 2 This sensitivity analysis reflects potential variation in the market performance of the proposed hotel. The City has limited ability to influence the hotel’s market positioning after project entitlement. Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues $1,822,000 $22,000 $1,800,000 General Fund Expenditures $38,000 $9,000 $29,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,783,000 $12,000 $1,771,000 Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 3 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Table 2 Hotel Sensitivity Analysis (2017$) Fiscal Impact on the General Fund This section describes the methodology and key assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impacts of the proposed GPA. The analysis is based on information from three key sources: (1) the GPA application material submitted (2) interviews with City planning and finance staff (3) existing EPS industry knowledge EPS has not conducted an independent audit of the City’s budget, performed in-depth interviews with service-providing City departments, or conducted detailed market analysis. Proposed General Plan Amendment The applicant is proposing an Upper Upscale boutique hotel on a 1.72-acre site located at 10765- 10801 North Wolfe Road. The proposed development envisions a new five-story 185-room hotel with a 2,500-square-foot restaurant and additional meeting/banquet space. Table 3 below presents the proposed GPA program identified by the applicant. The table also presents EPS assumptions concerning the population and employment that would be supported by the project at buildout. A variety of revenues and costs included in this fiscal analysis are based on the anticipated “service population” shown in Table 3, which weights a local employee’s service burden at 50 percent of a resident’s burden. Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact $300/Room Night Fiscal Impact $200/Room Night General Fund Revenues $1,822,000 $1,254,000 General Fund Expenditures $38,000 $38,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,783,000 $1,215,000 Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Fiscal Impact Review Page 4 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Table 3 Development Program and Service Population ItemEmploymentServicePopulation (2)Commercial UsesRestaurant 2,500 SF 500 SF / Employee 5 3Hotel 185 Rooms 1.0 Room(s) / Employee 185 93Total0DU190 95(1) Household and employment densities vary based on specific tenant and space sizes. EPS assumptions reflect typical conditions.(2) Per-person employee burden on City service is weighted at 50 percent of resident burden. Resident or Worker Density Assumptions (1)Development Program Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 5 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx General Fund Revenues New General Fund tax proceeds attributable to the proposed GPA will include property tax, property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF), property transfer tax, TOT, utility user tax, franchise fees, and business licenses. Table 4 provides a summary of the Cupertino 2016-17 Adopted General Fund revenue budget and a description of the forecasting method relied upon for each relevant revenue source. Table 4 FY2016 - 17 Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors FY2016-17 Total Sales Tax Business to Business Sales Tax (1) $15,034,800 $0.20 per square foot of office Other Sales Tax $7,405,200 1.0% of estimated taxable sales Property Tax Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (2) $7,106,000 0.4% of Citywide Assessed Value Other Property Tax $11,635,000 7.0% of base property tax rate (1%) Transient Occupancy Tax $6,708,000 12% of total TOT revenue Utility Tax $3,122,000 2.4% of utility bills Franchise Fees $2,900,000 $38.21 per service population Other Taxes (3)$1,600,000 Construction Tax $500,000 - not estimated Business License $600,000 $17.67 per employee Property Transfer Tax $500,000 $0.55 per $1,000 in value Licenses & Permits $2,499,000 - not estimated Fines & Forfeitures $776,980 - not estimated Use of Money & Property $230,500 - not estimated Intergovernmental $19,003,224 - not estimated Charges for Services $600,000 - not estimated Miscellaneous $383,300 - not estimated Total Revenues $79,004,004 (2) FY2016-17 total reflects 38% allocation of the property tax total. Budget detail provided by the City. (3) FY2016-17 total reflects allocation of other taxes based on detail provided by the City. Project RevenueItem (1) FY2016-17 total reflects 67% allocation of the sales tax total. Budget detail provided by the City. Estimating factor reflects typical business-to-business sales tax generation in Silicon Valley offices. Estimating Factors Applied to Estimate Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 6 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Property Tax Revenue Property tax revenue estimates are based on the estimated assessed value of the proposed project. Relying on the applicant’s proposed development program, EPS estimates the project’s assessed value at about $94 million at buildout, as shown in Table 5. Commercial value assumptions reflect a review of recent sales in the market area. The City levies a one percent property tax rate, with approximately 7.0 percent allocated to the General Fund.3 Table 5 Property Tax Revenue 3 Property tax rate anticipated at project delivery; City of Cupertino 2016-17 Adopted Budget, page 80. Item Total at Buildout Property Tax Assessed Value Estimate Hotel $500,000 Per Room $92,500,000 Restaurant $600 Per Square Foot $1,500,000 Total Assessed Value $94,000,000 Property Tax 1.0% Base Property Tax Rate $940,000 Cupertino General Fund Revenue (1)7.0%Allocation to Cupertino General Fund $65,800 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $7,106,000 Citywide Assessed Value (2)$21,350,000,000 Project Net Assessed Value Increase (3)0.44% Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (4)$31,286 (1) Legislation requires Counties to provide "no/low tax" cities with a Tax Equity Allocation equal to 7 percent of property tax share. (2) FY2016-2017 value based on the Santa Clara County Assessor Annual Assessor's Report. (4) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by project net assessed value increase. Assumption / Factor (3) Calculated by dividing the new assessed value by citywide assessed value. Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 7 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Property Tax In Lieu of VLF In 2004, the State of California adjusted the method for sharing VLF with local jurisdictions. Recent State budget changes replaced VLF with property tax, which grows proportionately with increases in assessed value of the City. The proposed project will add about 0.44 percent to the current assessed value in Cupertino (assuming no other assessed value growth for simplification purposes) and will generate the same increased percentage in in-lieu VLF revenues (see Table 5). Property Transfer Tax The project will generate real estate transfer tax revenue associated with future turnover in ownership. This analysis assumes that ownership of the hotel, including the restaurant, is likely to turnover every 25 years, an annual turnover rate of 4.0 percent. 4 The property transfer tax rate accruing to the City General Fund is $0.55 per $1,000 of the property value, as shown in Table 6. Table 6 Property Transfer Tax Revenue Sales Tax Revenue The project will generate sales tax associated with the proposed 2,500-square-foot restaurant in the development. This analysis assumes that each square foot of the restaurant will generate $300 of taxable sales. EPS assumes that 20 percent of sales shift from existing retailers in the City. The City collects 1.0 percent of total taxable sales as shown in Table 7. 4 For institutional investors of commercial real estate a typical holding period is five to seven years (Ciochetti and Fisher, 2002). This analysis assumes a significantly longer holding period due to the property tax benefits of long-term ownership in California. Item Annual Total at Buildout Property Value Hotel $500,000 Per Room $92,500,000 Restaurant $600 Per Square Foot $1,500,000 Total $94,000,000 Average Annual Turnover Hotel 4.0% $3,700,000 Restaurant 4.0% $60,000 Total $3,760,000 Property Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 in value $2,068 Assumption / Factor Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 8 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Table 7 Sales Tax Revenue Transient Occupancy Tax The hotel is expected to help satisfy strong lodging demand in the local market. Consistent with the GPA application, this analysis assumes the 185 hotel rooms planned for the project achieve an average daily room rate of $300 and 70 percent occupancy. The estimate of TOT is calculated by applying the current rate of 12 percent to the total room revenue generated by new hotel, as shown in Table 8. Table 8 Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Item Annual Total at Buildout On-Site Sales New Restaurant Space (Sq.Ft.) 2,500 Gross Taxable Sales from Restaurant $300 per square foot $750,000 Sales Net of Redistributed Sales in City (1) 80% of total taxable sales $600,000 Total Sales Tax Revenue 1.0% of taxable sales $6,000 (1) Assumes some sales shift from existing restaurants in the city. Sources: State Board of Equalization, ICSC Research Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Assumptions Item Assumptions Annual Total at Buildout Hotel Rooms 185 Average Daily Room Charge $300 Average Occupancy 70% Average Annual Revenue $14,180,250 Total TOT Revenue 12.0%$1,701,630 % of Total Citywide FY2016-17 TOT Revenue (illustrative)25.4% Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 9 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Utility Tax The City of Cupertino collects tax revenue on utility charges for services provided in the City. New residents and employees will expand the use of utilities in the City. This analysis estimates an average monthly utility expense of $150 per employee. The City of Cupertino collects 2.4 percent of utility charges. Table 9 presents utility user tax revenue attributable to the proposed project at buildout. Table 9 Utility User Tax Revenue Revenues from Other Taxes and Fees In addition to the key revenues described above, other taxes and fees are estimated to be generated by the project. Specifically, franchise fee revenue and business license revenue, which reflect averages derived from City budget documents (see Table 4), are calculated for the hotel. Table 10 presents forecasting assumptions and revenue estimates. Table 10 Revenue from Other Taxes and Fees Annual Total at Buildout Commercial Total Employees 190 employees Monthly Utility Cost $150 per employee per month Total Annual Utility Expenses $342,000 Utility User Tax Revenue 2.4% of utility bill $8,208 Assumption Item Annual Total at Buildout Franchise Fees (1)$38.21 per service population 95 service pop. $3,630 Business License (1)$17.67 per employee 190 employees $3,358 Subtotal $6,988 Allocation Factor Project Characteristic (1) Franchise Fee and Business License allocation factors are both based on existing general fund revenue per capita. Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 10 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx General Fund Expenditures This fiscal analysis estimates the costs attributable to population and employment growth by characterizing how expenses will change for each City department. For some departments, population and employment growth in the City will not dramatically alter operations. For example, administrative functions in the City are not likely to scale up significantly to accommodate new projects. Alternatively, departments that provide services directly to residents and businesses likely will increase their operations and costs to accommodate new populations. It is important to note that a range of external factors may influence responses to growth and cost effects in the future. Examples of factors that are beyond the control of the City and its departments that may act to magnify or reduce department costs over time include:  Regional growth;  Technology;  State and federal policies; and  Environmental factors. This study does not speculate regarding the potential effects of such exogenous influences on the general fund expense budget. It focuses only on those factors attributable directly to the population growth, employment growth, and land use changes generated by the proposed GPA. The fiscal analysis model relies on categorization of the likely budgetary response to population and employment growth for each department. The anticipated response to growth is expressed for fiscal modeling purposes in terms of “fixed expenses” and “variable expenses” within the department budget. The fixed expenses are the portion of a City department’s budget which is not affected by population and employment growth. Even a department which is anticipated to grow largely in step with the City’s service population likely would have some fixed cost. For example, in most cases each department has only one director position, which is a fixed expense for the department. While the department may increase staffing to accommodate growth, the department will not add another director. The variable expenses of a department are those that do increase with growth. As the City grows, increased demand for services requires some departments to scale up operations to meet new demand. The portion of a department’s budget that scales up is identified as the variable share of the budget. EPS uses a per-capita cost approach to estimate department costs attributable to new residents and workers. The variable portion of each department budget is used to determine the per-capita cost, as shown in Table 11. Then, to determine the new General Fund expenditures generated by the proposed project, the per-capita factors are multiplied by the projected increase in service population or population, as appropriate. Innovation and Technology and Non-Departmental expenditures are not estimated because the project is not expected to generate new ongoing costs in to these service providers. Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 11 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Table 11 FY2016-17 Expenditure Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors ItemCity General Fund Expenses (FY2016-17) Percent Variable (1)Annual Variable ExpensesPer Capita General Fund ExpenseProject Population/ Service PopulationAnnual Total at BuildoutGeneral Government (2)$11,341,627 10% $1,134,163 75,892 Service Pop. $14.94 95 $1,420Police (3) $11,884,384 90% $10,695,946 75,892 Service Pop. $140.94 95 $13,389Innovation and Technology (4)$924,006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ARecreation &Community Services$10,484,573 75% $7,863,430 58,917 Population $133.47 0 $0Planning & Community Development$10,273,323 50% $5,136,662 75,892 Service Pop. $67.68 95 $6,430Public Works (5)$19,343,167 75% $14,507,375 75,892 Service Pop. $191.16 95 $18,160Non-Departmental $12,971,373N/AN/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A Total Expenditures $77,222,453$39,399(1) Percentage of costs that are population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges.(2) Includes Administration, Administrative Services, and Council and Commissions.(4) Formerly known as Public Affairs and includes services such as videography, applications, IT and GIS.Sources: City of Cupertino FY 2016/17 Adopted Budget Estimating Factors (3) Reflects the contract portion of the police department's budget. To the extent the cumulative effect of new growth triggers the contract terms exceeding the cap agreed upon in 2014, the cost impact may be above that estimated based on the average cost approach.(5) Includes administration, environmental programs, development services,service center, grounds, streets, trees and right of way, facilities and fleet, transportation, and other programs. Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 12 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Fiscal Impact of Proposed Project Table 12 summarizes the fiscal impact of the hotel development proposal on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund, with forecasted revenues and expenditure estimates based on the methodology described above. The net annual fiscal impact of the proposed GPA is estimated at about $1.8 million. Table 12 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Hotel at Buildout (2017$) Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$6,000 Property Tax $66,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $31,000 Property Transfer Tax $2,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $1,702,000 Utility Tax $8,000 Franchise Fees $4,000 Business Licenses $3,000 Total Revenues $1,822,000 General Fund Expenditures General Government $1,000 Police $13,000 Planning & Community Development $6,000 Public Works $18,000 Total Expenditures $38,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,783,000 Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 13 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Existing Conditions Estimate In order to quantify the fiscal impact of the existing the same fiscal methodology is applied to existing land use program as the proposed GPA. The site currently is occupied by 10,044 square feet of retail space and an operating 3,400-square-foot restaurant. Despite current vacancies, the analysis assumes that retail space can be re-tenanted and is occupied for valuation purposes. The existing use provides a positive fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund of about $12,000 a year, as shown in Table 13. Table 13 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Hotel Existing Conditions (2017$) Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$9,000 Business to Business Sales $2,000 Property Tax $5,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $2,000 Utility Tax $2,000 Franchise Fees $1,000 Business Licenses $1,000 Total Revenues $22,000 General Fund Expenditures Police $3,000 Planning & Community Development $2,000 Public Works $4,000 Total Expenditures $9,000 Net Impact on General Fund $12,000 Memorandum July 18, 2017 Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 14 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoVillagelMemo_071817.docx Net Fiscal Impact This hotel project, as proposed, will result in an annual net fiscal benefit to the City of Cupertino General Fund. This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the GPA proposal on the City’s General Fund is approximately $1.8 million, as shown in Table 14. The net increase in General Fund revenues from the project at buildout is estimated at roughly $1.8 million annually more than existing uses. The net increase in General Fund expenditures associated with the Project is estimated at approximately $29,000 per year more than existing uses. Table 14 Net Fiscal Impact Summary (2017$) Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues $1,822,000 $22,000 $1,800,000 General Fund Expenditures $38,000 $9,000 $29,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,783,000 $12,000 $1,771,000 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2835 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/21/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: A proposal to demolish a 8,323 s.f. auto service station and construct a new 156-room, five- story hotel, with conference space and restaurant at the Good Year Tire site that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2017-01; Applicant: Claudio Bono (De Anza Properties); Location: 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard; APN(s): 326-10-061 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:16B - Staff Report 16B.1 - Goodyear Tire site project plans and Project Description 16B.2 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Good Year Tire site Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:A proposal to demolish a 8,323 s.f.auto service station and construct a new 156-room, five-story hotel,with conference space and restaurant at the Good Year Tire site that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s):GPAAuth-2017-01;Applicant:Claudio Bono (De Anza Properties); Location: 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard; APN(s): 326-10-061 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject A proposal to demolish a 8,323 s.f. auto service station and construct a new 156-room, five-story hotel, with conference space and restaurant at the Good Year Tire site that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2017-01; Applicant: Claudio Bono (De Anza Properties); Location: 10931 N. De Anza Boulevard; APN(s): 326-10-061) Recommended Action Determine if the proposal is authorized to move forward to apply for General Plan Amendments. Discussion Background On September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future Gen- eral Plan amendments. Additional details on the process are available in the cover staff report for this item. The current applicant had made an application for the Council’s consideration to author- ize the review of General Plan Amendments for a hotel project at the same location during the second cycle of applications of 2015 (GPAAuth-2015-02). The City Council denied authorization of the application with a 4-1 vote on February 2, 2016. That project was for a 105’, nine-story, and 270 room hotel with a lounge on the top level, employee locker facility on the second floor, two levels of parking and no community amenities. At this time, the applicant has reduced the scope of the proposed hotel and offered community amenities as further described below. The Analysis section below reviews the project based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the procedures adopted by the Council and discussed in the Cover Staff Report. Analysis Introduction The proposal for redevelopment of the Goodyear Tire site is to demolish 8,323 square feet of an automobile service station (a Goodyear Tire store) and construct a 156-room, five- story hotel, approximately 58’ in height, with approximately 5,727 square feet of confer- ence space and restaurant (See Attachment 17B.1.) Project Location and Surrounding Uses The project site is located on a 1.29-gross-acre site on the west side of N. De Anza Boulevard between Hwy 280 and Homestead Road, in the North De Anza Gateway within the Homestead Special Area. The General Plan identifies the Homestead Special Area as a major mixed-use corridor that continues to be a predominantly mixed-use area with a series of neighborhood commercial centers and multi-family housing. The land uses along N. De Anza Boulevard, between Interstate 280 and the Sunnyvale city limit allows residential and commercial (including hotel uses with a Conditional Use Permit). As previously stated, the site currently has an 8,323-square-foot auto repair center. It is accessed via two driveways on N. De Anza Boulevard both of which also provide access for the Homestead Shopping center, and its loading areas, located to the west. Other surrounding uses include a strip shopping center to the north, a 96-unit, three-story condominium complex to the southwest, the four-story Cupertino Inn (126 rooms) to the south and the 140-unit, three-story, Aviare apartment development to the east. Heights of the various buildings range from one story to four stories at a maximum of 45 feet. Project Data Table 1 indicates the proposed project data along with General Plan amendments, or variances, requested and/or required. Table 1: Good Year Tire Project Data Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required/ Existing Proposed Comments General Plan designation Commercial/Residential No change - Zoning designation P (CG-rg) – Planned Development ( General Commercial) with special development conditions No change Hotel uses allowed in CG zoning districts with a Conditional Use Permit. Development allocation Hotel None available 156 rooms GPA requested. Commercial Existing - 8,323 s.f. 9,487 s.f. Will need a transfer of commercial allocation. ~814,000 s.f. commercial allocation available. Restaurant - 3,760 s.f Conference Facilities - 5,727 s.f. Height 45 feet 58 feet GPA requested. Slope line (setback : height) 1 : 1 0.36 : 1 GPA requested. Setbacks Planned Development zoning allows some deviation from development regulations of the underlying CG zoning though projects strive to meet those standards, except those required by Ordinance 436. Front None required except to: − Ensure sufficient space for adequate light, air and visibility at intersections − Assure general conformity to yard requirements of adjacent or nearby zones, lot or parcels − Promote excellence in development ~ 5 feet The plans indicate a 20 foot setback, however, this is measured from the existing property line. Redevelopment at this site will necessitate a 15 foot dedication along N. De Anza Blvd. Additional setback may be required for aesthetics and landscaping opportunities. Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required/ Existing Proposed Comments Minimum side and rear None required Varies between 30 & 40 feet Building area Existing – 8,323 s.f. 119,271 s.f. - Lot coverage Existing – 15% (no max.) 53% - Parking Vehicles - 1/room + 1/employee 166 spaces 144 spaces Parking study needed as required by the City’s Parking Ordinance. Restaurant Facilities 1/3 seats + 1/employee 0 Conference Facilities To be determined through parking study 0 Bikes - 1/20,000 square feet 6 0 Bike parking required Evaluation Criteria Discussion The following is a discussion of the project relative to the evaluation criteria established by City Council procedure for General Plan Amendment authorization requests. For de- tails on the criteria, please see the Cover Report. General Plan Goals Achieved by Proposal Site and Architectural Design and Neighborhood Compatibility:  The site is generally satisfactory with active uses including the lobby and restaurant along N. De Anza Boulevard and the vehicular entry to the underground basement at the rear of the site. However, additional revisions would be required to ensure that ancillary uses such as restrooms are moved away to the interior of the building and that lobbies, restaurants and other active spaces are provided along the street. Parking is located underground minimizing the height of the building. Additional review will also need to be conducted to ensure that the access and circulation meets sightlines and other safety requirements. Additional site planning review may be required to reorganize some back of house activities located at the northeast corner of the building.  The small size of the site does not allow for landscaping or large setbacks. Further review would be required to determine opportunities to add landscaping and trees to screen and enhance the project.  The site plan may need to be changed including:  Moving the building wall along N. De Anza Boulevard further to the west to allow light, air and provide opportunities for landscaping, due to a required dedication along N. De Anza Boulevard.  Moving the north building wall approximately 15 feet to the south to allow for a required 30-foot driveway along the north of the property per the conditions of approval of the established zoning for the property (Zoning Ordinance No. 436.) The ordinance requires the driveway at this location to be “three car widths,” which is estimated to be 30 feet since travel lanes for a single car is 10 feet at a minimum. An amendment to that ordinance or a variance from that requirement would be required in order to allow the building wall to be constructed in any location that precludes the establishment of a three-car width driveway. The applicant has not indicated that they wish to apply for a variance or amendment to that ordinance. Since this zoning requirement also applies to the Homestead Shopping Center, it would be prudent for this driveway to align with the location of the driveway connecting to that property.  Evaluate either the elimination of one of the driveways on N. De Anza Blvd serving this site or the possible closure of the existing driveway approach at 10889 N. De Anza Blvd. in order to minimize the number of driveways along De Anza Blvd, optimize circulation efficiency and eliminate potential safety concerns near the intersection of N. De Anza Blvd and I-280 on-ramps.  The architectural and site design quality needs further development and the final design that is eventually presented to the City Council may not be the one depicted. The design and massing could be improved to reduce the height and bulk of the building and ensure that the building can fit in better with the lower buildings surrounding it. The selection of materials needs further review. Net Fiscal Impacts  An analysis of fiscal impacts to the City has been prepared by Economics and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), a third-party consulting firm. The report estimates a net revenue of between $1 - 1.5 million to the City based on a 70% occupancy rate and an average room rate of $200-300 a night (see Attachment 17B.2.) Existing uses on the site create a net positive fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund of about $10,000 a year.  While the applicant states that this would be the only full-service hotel in Cupertino upon construction, Juniper Hotel (formerly Cypress Hotel) is considered a full-service hotel. However, the proposed project could diversify the City’s economic base by adding a second full-service hotel in Cupertino. Provision of affordable housing  The proposal does not include any affordable housing. However, the applicant will be required to pay any applicable affordable housing fees as a project requirement. Environmental Sustainability  The Green roof at mezzanine level would reduce air quality impacts, increase energy efficiency, increase roof longevity, and facilitate stormwater/clean water control measures. However, this could be a project requirement and not an enhanced sustainability measure since the site is tight and not many opportunities exist to meet stormwater control requirements.  Proposed shuttle service for guests and residents would reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. However, this would likely be a project requirement as a Transport Demand Management (TDM) mitigation measure for hotel guests and not a project amenity beyond statutory requirements. The project could be required to additionally contribute towards the setup and operational costs of a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) and a community shuttle, if a program is created.  Additional measures and analysis regarding landscape, water and energy use, stormwater management, greenhouse gas emissions and waste management would be refined and expanded at the formal application stage. However, it does not appear that these measures would go above and beyond statutory requirements. The current ordinance requires projects of this size to meet LEED silver. The project could be additionally be required to meet higher LEED goals. General Plan Amendments Requested The applicant is requesting General Plan Amendments for the following: 1. Hotel Allocation of 156 rooms (where none are available) 2. An increase in maximum allowable height 3. A reduction in the required building slope line on N. De Anza Boulevard Voluntary Community Amenities Proposed Table 2 below lists the proposed community amenities by the applicant and staff’s analysis of the proposal. Table 2: Proposed Voluntary Community Amenities Categories Proposed Beneficiary Value Comments School resources Complementary use of conference facilities for the Cupertino Union School District, City of Cupertino, and Cupertino non-profits for up to 12 days per year. Cupertino Union School District, City of Cupertino, and Cupertino non- profits $0 Hours, length of agreement, rates and facility details are not specified. Cannot be accurately quantified. Free rooms for the use of the Cupertino Union School District for visiting speak- ers, scholars, and school business activities. Cupertino Union School District $0 Valued between $200 and $300 per room for each occasion rooms are reserved. However, cannot be quantified. Public open space None N/A $0 Public facilities None N/A $0 Transportation facilities Reduced rate for use of hotel shuttle for Cupertino residents for airport transportation needs on the hotel’s schedule. Residents $0 The value of this proposed amenity cannot accurately be quantified due to lack of details Increase complimentary shuttle services to include San Francisco airport Hotel Guests Participation in citywide shuttle service pending participation of other hotels and businesses. Residents Community Amenity Funding Community Amenity Funding to the City City of Cupertino $1,560,000 One-time payment of $10,000 a room. Categories Proposed Beneficiary Value Comments Other A roof top deck with full food and beverage service amenities Not a qualified Community Amenity. May need amendment to General Plan policy to allow small rooftop structures that support such uses (e.g. arbors, and shade structures) Total Value of Qualified Community Amenities $1,560,000 Total Value/square-foot of Qualified Community Amenities $13.07/s.f. Staff Time and Resources: The Planning Division will dedicate a project manager (either staff or consultant based on availability) to guide the project through the entitlement process appropriate environmental and city related reviews. It is estimated that approximately 0.3 FTE hours will be required for processing this application. Staff time and consultant costs will be paid for by the applicant. Public Noticing and Outreach No comments have been received as of the publication of this staff report. Fiscal Impact The project net fiscal impact to the City’s budget has been discussed previously in the “Net Fiscal Impacts” section above. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: 16B.1 - Goodyear Tire site project plans and Project Description 16B.2 – Preliminary Fiscal Impact Analysis for The Goodyear Tire site proposal, prepared Economics and Planning Systems, Inc., dated July 21, 2017 www.arctecinc.comPROJECT NUMBER: 174438A General Plan Amendment Application For:NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES10931 N. De Anza Blvd.Cupertino, CA 95014PROJECT TEAMARCHITECTURALCOVER SHEETDRAWING INDEX AND ISSUE DATESA1.01SITE PLANA2.01BASEMENT LEVEL-1 PLANA2.02BASEMENT LEVEL-2 PLANA2.11FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.12SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.12TYPICAL LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (3-4)A2.13FIFTH LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.51ENLARGED HOTEL ROOM PLANSA2.52ENLARGED HOTEL ROOM PLANSA3.01EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.02EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.11RENDERED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.12RENDERED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4.01SITE SECTIONSPROJECT DESCRIPTIONA NEW 5 STORY HOTEL WITH 156 ROOMS AND TOTALING 119,271 S.F.FIRST ISSUE OR NO CHANGES SINCE PREVIOUS ISSUEMODIFICATIONS SINCE PREVIOUS ISSUEISSUE DATES AND DESCRIPTIONS05.15.17 PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALARCHITECT:ARC TEC INC.99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 840San Jose, CA 95113408.496.0676Craig Almelehcalmeleh@arctecinc.comCIVILENGINEER:RUTH & GOING, INC.2216 The AlamedaSanta Clara, CA 95050408.236.2400Michael Sheehymsheehy@ruthandgoing.com2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 2)2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 3)2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 4)2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 5)2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 6)2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART 9)2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CCR TITLE 24, PART11)ALL CODES ARE SUBJECT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS PERCALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION BULLETIN 10-03.APPLICABLE CODESLANDSCAPEARCHITECT:THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP181 Greenwich StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111415.433.4672Paul Lettierip.lettieri@tgp-inc.comCIVILC1.0BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYC2.0PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC3.0CROSS SECTIONSLANDSCAPEL1.01CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANOWNER NAME:NORTHWEST PROPERTIES GPPROJECT ADDRESS:10931 N. DE ANZA BLVD.CUPERTINO, CA 95014ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:APN 326-10-061ZONING:CG-rg per ORDINANCE 436SITE AREA, NET:56,287 S.F. / 1.29 ACRESBUILDING AREA:119,271 S.F.TOTAL MTG./BANQUET SPACE:5,727 S.F.FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR):2.12NUMBER OF STORIES:5CONSTRUCTION TYPE:I-AFIRE SPRINKLERS:YESOCCUPANCY TYPE:R1BUILDING FOOTPRINT:29,830 S.F.BUILDING COVERAGE (% OF SITE):53.0%GARAGE BUILDING AREA:61,628 S.F.NUMBER OF STORIES:2 (BELOW GRADE)CONSTRUCTION TYPE:1-AFIRE SPRINKLERSYESOCCUPANCY TYPE:S-2HOTEL ROOMS:156TYPE A: 54TYPE B: 60TYPE C: 8TYPE D: 8TYPE E: 6TYPE F: 4TYPE G: 3TYPE H: 4TYPE J: 6TYPE K: 2TYPE L: 1PROJECT DATAVIEW FROM NORTH EAST CORNERVIEW FROM SOUTH EAST CORNERA General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd Cupertino, CA 95014OWNER:NORTHWEST PROPERTIES GP960 N. San Antonio Road, Suite 114Los Altos, CA 94022650.209.3232John VidovichJTVidovich@aol.com ONE WAYONE WAYRAMP DOWNONE WAYONE WAYONE WAYUPDNUPUPUPDNUPDNUPDNNOPARKING16'-0"23'-0" 1'-5" 2'-0" 18'-9"28'-0"4'-0"4'-4"8'-6"26'-0"2'-4"S9S1S2A113333332220'-0" SETBACK 20'-0" SETBACK 4444455616777778999910101010111A4.012A4.014A1.01SITE PLANPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALPARKING ANALYSIS .SITE COVERAGEBUILDING FOOTPRINT30,212 S.F.SITE AREA56,287 S.F. / 1.29 ACRESBUILDING COVERAGE53.7%PARKING REQUIRED: 1 PER EMPLOYEE + 1 PER ROOM 10 EMPLOYEES + 156 ROOMSTOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 166 SPACESPARKING PROVIDEDON GRADEUNISTALL13 SPACESVAN ACCESSIBLE1 SPACEUNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGEFIRST LEVEL65 STALLSSECOND LEVEL65 STALLSTOTAL PARKING PROVIDED144 SPACESPREVIOUSLY 208 SPACESAUTOMOBILE PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS (19.124.040 B)STALL TYPEWIDTHDEPTHAISLECOMPLIANTUNISTALL8'-6"18'-0"22'-0"YESREQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS (CBC TABLE 11B-208.2)151-2006COMPLIANTMINIMUM REQUIREDTOTAL PARKING SPACESYESSCALE: SITE PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"KEY NOTES123PAVED PARKING AND DRIVES6" HIGH CONCRETE CURB4LANDSCAPE AREA, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS5ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SHOWN DASHEDWALKWAY AND HARDSCAPE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS7PORTE COCHERE, REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PAVING9LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW SHOWN DASHED10TRANSFORMER VAULT ACCESS DOORS8CANOPY AND BUILDING ABOVE SHOWN DASHED6EXISTING WALKWAY TO REMAIN11EXISTING PROPERTY LINE SHOWN DASHEDTRANSIT MAPSITEVICINITY MAPSITE280Homestead Rd.Stevens Creek Blvd.Fremont Ave.De Anza Blvd.Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd. Wolfe Rd.85 RAMP DOWNUPDNRAMP UP1232'-0"234567891030'-0"A12'-6" 125'-6"BCDFHIJ29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"3.57.515'-7"E13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"123456789103.57.52.330'-0"15'-7"13'-6"13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"11'-0"GUPUPUPDN5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"UPDNUPDN1.22'-6"2'-6"9.8UPDNS8S21S3S11S11S3S82TYP.4TYP.84TYP.2TYP.4TYP.A2.01BASEMENT LEVEL-1 FLOOR PLANPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: BASEMENT LEVEL-1 PLAN (65 SPACES)3/32" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR SPECIFICATION1KEYNOTES .NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.STRUCTURAL COLUMN2ENTRY DOOR3EXTERIOR WALL; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR FINISH SPECIFICATION4CANOPY ABOVE, SHOWN DASHED56FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND .NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.PARTITION OR WALL (UNRATED)FURNISH AND INSTALL DOOR & FRAMEPARTITION OR WALL (ONE-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)PARTITION OR WALL (TWO-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)METAL PANEL CLAD COLUMNOVERHEAD ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR7PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP8LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW, SHOWN DASHED9 RAMP UP1232'-0"234567891030'-0"A12'-6" 125'-6"BCDFHIJ29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"3.57.515'-7"E13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"123456789103.57.52.330'-0"15'-7"13'-6"13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"11'-0"GUPUPUPDN5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"UPDNUPDN1.22'-6"2'-6"9.8UPDNUPDNS8S21S3S11S11S3S82TYP.4TYP.84TYP.2TYP.4TYP.A2.02BASEMENT LEVEL-2 FLOOR PLANPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: BASEMENT LEVEL-2 PLAN (65 SPACES)3/32" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR SPECIFICATION1KEYNOTES .NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.STRUCTURAL COLUMN2ENTRY DOOR3EXTERIOR WALL; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR FINISH SPECIFICATION4CANOPY ABOVE, SHOWN DASHED56FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND .NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.PARTITION OR WALL (UNRATED)FURNISH AND INSTALL DOOR & FRAMEPARTITION OR WALL (ONE-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)PARTITION OR WALL (TWO-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)METAL PANEL CLAD COLUMNOVERHEAD ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR7PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP8LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW, SHOWN DASHED9 1232'-0"234567891030'-0"A12'-6" 125'-6"BCDFHIJ29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"3.57.515'-7"EUPDN13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"123456789103.57.52.330'-0"15'-7"13'-6"13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"11'-0"GUPUPUPDN5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"UPDNUPDN1.22'-6"2'-6"9.8GALLERYTRASH ROOM704 SFKITCHEN1,288 SFSERVICECORRIDORo.h. doorEQUIP. STOR.590 SFWOMENLOUNGEMENCONFERENCE #41,336 SF90 OCCUPANTSJAN./STOR.glassdividerBUILDINGUTILITYELEV. LOBBYLOUNGELOBBYCONFERENCE #11,713 SF114 OCCUPANTSCONFERENCE #21,513 SF101 OCCUPANTSEXITCORRIDORSTOR.CONFERENCE #31,165 SF78 OCCUPANTSSTOR.STOR.BELL CAP/LUGGAGESTORAGE245 SFLOBBYDESKDININGBARelev. openingBARSTORAGEAND DISHAREA110 SFOFFICE170 SFELEC.ROOMONE WAYONE WAYRAMP DOWNONE WAYONE WAYONE WAY1232'-0"234567891030'-0"A12'-6" 125'-6"BCDFHIJ29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"3.57.515'-7"EUPDN13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"123456789103.57.52.330'-0"15'-7"13'-6"13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"11'-0"GUPUPUPDN5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"UPDNUPDN1.22'-6"2'-6"9.8GALLERYTRASH ROOM704 SFKITCHEN1,288 SFSERVICECORRIDORo.h. doorEQUIP. STOR.590 SFWOMENLOUNGEMENCONFERENCE #41,336 SF90 OCCUPANTSJAN./STOR.glassdividerBUILDINGUTILITYELEV. LOBBYLOUNGELOBBYCONFERENCE #11,713 SF114 OCCUPANTSCONFERENCE #21,513 SF101 OCCUPANTSEXITCORRIDORSTOR.CONFERENCE #31,165 SF78 OCCUPANTSSTOR.STOR.BELL CAP/LUGGAGESTORAGE245 SFLOBBYDESKDININGBARelev. openingBARSTORAGEAND DISHAREA110 SFOFFICE170 SFELEC.ROOMNOPARKING2A3.011A3.012A3.021A3.021TYP.4TYP.6668664TYP.1TYP.4TYP.65TYP.5TYP.5TYP.9TYP.9TYP.2TYP.2TYP.4TYP.1A4.012A4.01A2.11FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLANPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - LOBBY, CONFERENCE, AND SERVICE3/32" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR SPECIFICATION1KEYNOTES .NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.STRUCTURAL COLUMN2ENTRY DOOR3EXTERIOR WALL; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR FINISH SPECIFICATION4CANOPY ABOVE, SHOWN DASHED56FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND .NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.PARTITION OR WALL (UNRATED)FURNISH AND INSTALL DOOR & FRAMEPARTITION OR WALL (ONE-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)PARTITION OR WALL (TWO-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)METAL PANEL CLAD COLUMNOVERHEAD ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR7PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP8LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW, SHOWN DASHED9 1232'-0"234567891030'-0"A12'-6" 125'-6"BCDFHIJ29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"3.57.515'-7"EUPDN13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"123456789103.57.52.330'-0"15'-7"13'-6"13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"11'-0"GUPUP5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"UPDNUPDN1.22'-6"2'-6"9.82A3.011A3.012A3.021A3.021TYP.4TYP.1TYP.2TYP.414TYP.1TYP.4TYP.4TYP.4TYP.4TYP.11TYP.1A4.012A4.01A2.12SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLANEXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR SPECIFICATION1KEYNOTES .NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.STRUCTURAL COLUMN2ENTRY DOOR3EXTERIOR WALL; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR FINISH SPECIFICATION4CANOPY ABOVE, SHOWN DASHED56FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND .NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.PARTITION OR WALL (UNRATED)FURNISH AND INSTALL DOOR & FRAMEPARTITION OR WALL (ONE-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)PARTITION OR WALL (TWO-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)METAL PANEL CLAD COLUMNOVERHEAD ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR7PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP8LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW, SHOWN DASHED9PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN3/32" = 1'-0" 1232'-0"234567891030'-0"A12'-6" 125'-6"BCDFHIJ29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"3.57.515'-7"EUPDN13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"123456789103.57.52.330'-0"15'-7"13'-6"13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"11'-0"G5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"UPDNUPDN1.22'-6"2'-6"9.81TYP.4TYP.1TYP.41TYP.4TYP.1TYP.4TYP.4TYP.4TYP.11TYP.2A3.011A3.012A3.021A3.024TYP.4TYP.1TYP.1TYP.4TYP.1A4.012A4.01A2.13TYPICAL LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (3-4)PROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: TYPICAL LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (3-4)3/32" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR SPECIFICATION1KEYNOTES .NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.STRUCTURAL COLUMN2ENTRY DOOR3EXTERIOR WALL; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR FINISH SPECIFICATION4CANOPY ABOVE, SHOWN DASHED56FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND .NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.PARTITION OR WALL (UNRATED)FURNISH AND INSTALL DOOR & FRAMEPARTITION OR WALL (ONE-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)PARTITION OR WALL (TWO-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)METAL PANEL CLAD COLUMNOVERHEAD ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR7PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP8LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW, SHOWN DASHED9 1232'-0"234567891030'-0"A12'-6" 125'-6"BCDFHIJ29'-0"15'-0"15'-0"28'-0"15'-2"3.57.515'-7"EUPDN13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"30'-0"11'-0"123456789103.57.52.330'-0"15'-7"13'-6"13'-5"29'-0"29'-0"29'-0"13'-5"15'-7"23'-3"13'-6"30'-0"11'-0"G5'-4"2'-11"2'-7"UPDNUPDN1.22'-6"2'-6"9.81TYP.3TYP.1TYP.41TYP.3TYP.1TYP.3TYP.4TYP.4TYP.11TYP.2A3.011A3.012A3.021A3.024TYP.4TYP.5TYP.5TYP.5TYP.5TYP.1A4.012A4.01A2.14FIFTH LEVELFLOOR PLANPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: FIFTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN3/32" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR SPECIFICATION1KEYNOTES .NOTE: NOT ALL KEYNOTES LISTED MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.STRUCTURAL COLUMN2ENTRY DOOR3EXTERIOR WALL; REFER TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR FINISH SPECIFICATION4CANOPY ABOVE, SHOWN DASHED56FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS LEGEND .NOTE: NOT ALL SYMBOLS MAY APPLY TO THIS DRAWING.PARTITION OR WALL (UNRATED)FURNISH AND INSTALL DOOR & FRAMEPARTITION OR WALL (ONE-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)PARTITION OR WALL (TWO-HOUR FIRERESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION)METAL PANEL CLAD COLUMNOVERHEAD ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR7PARKING STRUCTURE RAMP8LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW, SHOWN DASHED9 A B D E F C C G B H J SCALE: 7 ROOM TYPE A, B, D, E 1/4" = 1'-0" A2.51 ENLARGED ROOM PLANS PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION In Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for:NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES10931 N. De Anza Blvd.Cupertino, CA 95014174438 05.15.17 PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SCALE: 9 ROOM TYPE G 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 8 ROOM TYPE F 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 6 ROOM TYPE C 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 11 ROOM TYPE H 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 12 ROOM TYPE J 1/4" = 1'-0" L K A2.52 ENLARGED ROOM PLANS PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION In Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for:NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES10931 N. De Anza Blvd.Cupertino, CA 95014174438 05.15.17 PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SCALE: 3 ROOM TYPE L 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE: 1 ROOM TYPE K 1/4" = 1'-0" 18'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"58'-0"1 112 8 26 6 3 16 6671553 3 744 4 8 11 18'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"58'-0"PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 58'-0" 6153 444 10 10 12 10 101111 272 1 A3.01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS COMPOSITE METAL PANELS OVER METAL STUD FRAMING NEW INSULATED TINTED GLAZING WITH CLEAR ANODIZED FRAMES, TYP. (FRAMES ARE COMBINATION OF 2" & 4" WIDTHS) METAL SUNSHADE 24" DEEP TEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM CHANNEL KEY NOTES . NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY APPLY STONE TILE OVER METAL STUD FRAMING LOUVERED METAL MECHANICAL SCREEN ENTRY DOORS COMPOSITE METAL CANOPY DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE STUCCO OVER METAL STUD FRAMING ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR NEW INSULATED TINTED GLAZING WITH VERTICAL BUTT JOINTS AND CLEAR ANODIZED FRAMES, TYP. (FRAMES ARE COMBINATION OF 2" & 4" WIDTHS) PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION In Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for:NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES10931 N. De Anza Blvd.Cupertino, CA 95014174438 05.15.17 PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL SCALE: EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 13/32" = 1'-0" SCALE: WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 23/32" = 1'-0" 18'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"58'-0"REQUIRED SETBACK LINE AT 1:1PROPERTY LINE 661651122222343318'-0"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"9'-6"58'-0"PROPERTY LINE REQUIRED SETBACK LINE AT 1:1PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT58'-0"26153710112461631A3.02EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION11/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION21/8" = 1'-0"COMPOSITE METAL PANELS OVER METAL STUD FRAMINGNEW INSULATED TINTED GLAZING WITH CLEAR ANODIZED FRAMES, TYP. (FRAMES ARECOMBINATION OF 2" & 4" WIDTHS)METAL SUNSHADE 24" DEEPTEMPERED GLASS GUARDRAIL SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM CHANNELKEY NOTES .NOT ALL KEYNOTES MAY APPLYSTONE TILE OVER METAL STUD FRAMINGLOUVERED METAL MECHANICAL SCREENENTRY DOORSCOMPOSITE METAL CANOPYDECORATIVE WALL SCONCESTUCCO OVER METAL STUD FRAMINGROLL-UP GARAGE DOORNEW INSULATED TINTED GLAZING WITH VERTICAL BUTT JOINTS AND CLEAR ANODIZEDFRAMES, TYP. (FRAMES ARE COMBINATION OF 2" & 4" WIDTHS) P1G1G2P1M1M2M1M2G1P1M1G1S1M1M1M1P1G1P1M1M2P1S1M1M1M2S1G1G1G1A3.11RENDERED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION13/32" = 1'-0"SCALE: WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION23/32" = 1'-0"FINISH LEGEND .ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANEL:MANUFACTURER:REYNOBONDSERIES:COLORWELD 500FINISH:CADET GRAY1" INSULATED LOW E GLAZING SYSTEM WITH BLUE TINT GLASS IN ALUMINUMFRAMES:MANUFACTURER:VIRACONCOLOR:SOLARBLUE - 261" TEMPERED CLEAR GLASS GUARDRAIL SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUMCHANNEL:MANUFACTURER:VIRACONCOLOR:CLEAR - 1ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANEL:MANUFACTURER:REYNOBONDSERIES:COLORWELD 500FINISH:CASTLE GRAYG1G2M2T1M1STONE TILE:MANUFACTURER:ARIZONA TILESERIES:MONTPELIER GRAY HONEDSTUCCO:MANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DET648 WHITE PICKET FENCEP1 M2G1P1M1G1S1M2M1M1M2M1P1M1G1S1M2M1G1M1A3.12RENDERED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION13/32" = 1'-0"SCALE: SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION23/32" = 1'-0"FINISH LEGEND .ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANEL:MANUFACTURER:REYNOBONDSERIES:COLORWELD 500FINISH:CADET GRAY1" INSULATED LOW E GLAZING SYSTEM WITH BLUE TINT GLASS IN ALUMINUMFRAMES:MANUFACTURER:VIRACONCOLOR:SOLARBLUE - 261" TEMPERED CLEAR GLASS GUARDRAIL SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUMCHANNEL:MANUFACTURER:VIRACONCOLOR:CLEAR - 1ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANEL:MANUFACTURER:REYNOBONDSERIES:COLORWELD 500FINISH:CASTLE GRAYG1G2M2T1M1STONE TILE:MANUFACTURER:ARIZONA TILESERIES:MONTPELIER GRAY HONEDSTUCCO:MANUFACTURER:DUNN EDWARDSCOLOR:DET648 WHITE PICKET FENCEP1 N. DE ANZA BLVDRAMP TOGARAGEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE REQUIRED SETBACK LINE AT 1:1GENERALCOMMERCIAL20'-8"39'-10"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE GENERALCOMMERCIALHOTEL34'-10"34'-5"A4.01SITE SECTIONPROJECT NO:DATEDESCRIPTIONIn Association with:A General Plan Amendment Application for: NEW HOTEL BY DE ANZA PROPERTIES 10931 N. De Anza Blvd. Cupertino, CA 9501417443805.15.17PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTALSCALE: SITE SECTION11/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: SITE SECTION21/16" = 1'-0" PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION In Association with: 123108 11.13.14 PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION In Association with: 123108 11.13.14 PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION In Association with: 123108 11.13.14 PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL M EMORANDUM To: Gian Martire, City of Cupertino From: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Subject: Fiscal Analysis of the Cupertino Hotel GPA Application; EPS #171072 Date: July 21, 2017 The City of Cupertino retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to prepare this fiscal impact analysis of an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The applicant is proposing a luxury full-service hotel on a 1.29-acre site located at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard. The proposed development envisions a 156-room hotel with an onsite restaurant, spa, and convention/meeting space. The EPS analysis assesses the effect of the proposed development on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund. The objective of the analysis is to quantify whether the proposed GPA will generate adequate revenues to cover the costs of providing ongoing services to associated new residents and employees. The analysis does not consider the impact of the proposal on potential capital facilities cost requirements or other one-time costs. The analysis compares the impact of the proposed GPA at buildout to the baseline impact of existing uses in the project area. This fiscal analysis is intended as a planning-level document to inform land use policy. EPS does not make tenant-specific assumptions as project tenants likely will change over time. The analysis is based on the City’s 2016-17 Adopted General Fund budget and presents findings in constant 2017 dollars. A summary of fiscal impact estimates attributable to proposed GPA is provided below. Actual fiscal impacts will depend on a number of factors that cannot be predicted with certainty, including the market performance of the project, future changes in City or State budgeting practices, and the efficiency of various City departments in providing services. Key analytical inputs and assumptions used in this analysis are from the GPA application, City documents, information from City staff, and EPS industry knowledge. Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 2 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Summary of Findings 1. The proposed hotel project will result in an annual net fiscal benefit to the City of Cupertino General Fund. This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the GPA proposal on the City’s General Fund is approximately $1.0 million to $1.5 million. Table 1 presents the estimated fiscal impact assuming the applicant’s anticipated average daily room rate of $300 per night. In this scenario, the net increase in General Fund revenues from the project at buildout is estimated at roughly $1.5 million more annually than existing uses at the site. The net increase in General Fund expenditures associated with the Project is estimated at approximately $28,000 more per year than existing uses. Table 1 Fiscal Impact Summary (2017$) 2. At project buildout, transient occupancy tax will account for the largest revenue source to the City. The City of Cupertino currently levies a 12 percent transient occupancy tax (TOT) on room revenue generated by hotels in the City. The proposed 156 hotel rooms included in the GPA proposal are projected to generate about $12.0 million in annual room revenue, providing the City’s General Fund with an estimated $1.4 million in annual TOT revenue. If the average room rate is lower than the anticipated $300 per night, TOT revenue will be less. For example, an average room rate of $200 per night would generate an estimate $8.0 million in annual room revenue and $956,600 in TOT revenue. Under this scenario, the project’s annual impact before consideration of baseline impacts on the General Fund would fall from $1.5 million to $1.0 million. Table 2 illustrates the differences in net fiscal impacts when assumed daily room rates are reduced from $300 to $200.1 1 This sensitivity analysis reflects potential variation in the market performance of the proposed hotel. The City has limited ability to influence the hotel’s market positioning after project entitlement. Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues $1,531,000 $14,000 $1,517,000 General Fund Expenditures $32,000 $4,000 $28,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,497,000 $10,000 $1,487,000 Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 3 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Table 2 Hotel Sensitivity Analysis (2017$) Fiscal Impact on the General Fund This section describes the methodology and key assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impacts of the proposed GPA. The analysis is based on information from three key sources: (1) the GPA application material submitted (2) interviews with City planning and finance staff (3) existing EPS industry knowledge EPS has not conducted an independent audit of the City’s budget, performed in-depth interviews with service-providing City departments, or conducted detailed market analysis. Proposed General Plan Amendment The applicant is proposing a hotel project to be developed on a 1.29-acre site located at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard. The proposed development envisions a full-service 156-room hotel with an onsite restaurant, spa, and convention/meeting space. Table 3 below presents the proposed GPA program identified by the applicant. The table also presents EPS assumptions concerning the population and employment that would be supported by the project at buildout. A variety of revenues and costs included in this fiscal analysis are based on the anticipated “service population” shown in Table 3, which weights a local employee’s service burden at 50 percent of a resident’s burden. Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact ($300/Room Night) Fiscal Impact ($200/Room Night) General Fund Revenues $1,531,000 $1,053,000 General Fund Expenditures $32,000 $32,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,497,000 $1,019,000 Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 4 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Table 3 Development Program and Service Population ItemEmploymentServicePopulation (2)Hotel 156 Rooms 1.0 Room(s) / Employee 156 78(1) Household and employment densities vary based on specific tenant and space sizes. EPS assumptions reflect typical conditions.(2) Per-person employee burden on City service is weighted at 50 percent of resident burden. Resident or Worker Density Assumptions (1)Development Program Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 5 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx General Fund Revenues New General Fund tax proceeds attributable to the proposed GPA will include property tax, property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF), property transfer tax, TOT, utility user tax, franchise fees, and business licenses. While sales tax revenue is not considered here, the project’s restaurant likely will contribute sales tax revenue to the City’s General Fund.2 Table 4 provides a summary of the Cupertino 2016-17 Adopted General Fund revenue budget and a description of the forecasting method relied upon for each relevant revenue source. Table 4 FY2016 - 17 Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors 2 The GPA application materials did not provide detail concerning the size or type of restaurant that is envisioned for the hotel project. FY2016-17 Total Sales Tax Business to Business Sales Tax (1) $15,034,800 $0.20 per square foot of office Other Sales Tax $7,405,200 1.0% of estimated taxable sales Property Tax Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (2) $7,106,000 0.4% of Citywide Assessed Value Other Property Tax $11,635,000 7.0% of base property tax rate (1%) Transient Occupancy Tax $6,708,000 12% of total TOT revenue Utility Tax $3,122,000 2.4% of utility bills Franchise Fees $2,900,000 $38.21 per service population Other Taxes (3)$1,600,000 Construction Tax $500,000 - not estimated Business License $600,000 $17.67 per employee Property Transfer Tax $500,000 $0.55 per $1,000 in value Licenses & Permits $2,499,000 - not estimated Fines & Forfeitures $776,980 - not estimated Use of Money & Property $230,500 - not estimated Intergovernmental $19,003,224 - not estimated Charges for Services $600,000 - not estimated Miscellaneous $383,300 - not estimated Total Revenues $79,004,004 (2) FY2016-17 total reflects 38% allocation of the property tax total. Budget detail provided by the City. (3) FY2016-17 total reflects allocation of other taxes based on detail provided by the City. Project RevenueItem (1) FY2016-17 total reflects 67% allocation of the sales tax total. Budget detail provided by the City. Estimating factor reflects typical business-to-business sales tax generation in Silicon Valley offices. Estimating Factors Applied to Estimate Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 6 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Property Tax Revenue Property tax revenue estimates are based on the estimated assessed value of the proposed project. Relying on the applicant’s proposed development program, EPS estimates the project’s assessed value at about $78.0 million at buildout, as shown in Table 5. The City levies a one percent property tax rate, with approximately 7.0 percent allocated to the General Fund.3 Table 5 Property Tax Revenue 3 Property tax rate anticipated at project delivery; City of Cupertino 2016-17 Adopted Budget, page 80. Item Total at Buildout Property Tax Assessed Value Estimate Hotel $500,000 Per Room $78,000,000 Property Tax 1.0% Base Property Tax Rate $780,000 Cupertino General Fund Revenue (1)7.0%Allocation to Cupertino General Fund $54,600 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $7,106,000 Citywide Assessed Value (2) $21,350,000,000 Project Net Assessed Value Increase (3) 0.37% Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (4) $25,961 (1) Legislation requires Counties to provide "no/low tax" cities with a Tax Equity Allocation equal to 7 percent of property tax share. (2) FY2016-2017 value based on the Santa Clara County Assessor Annual Assessor's Report. (4) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by project net assessed value increase. Assumption / Factor (3) Calculated by dividing the new assessed value by citywide assessed value. Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 7 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Property Tax In Lieu of VLF In 2004, the State of California adjusted the method for sharing VLF with local jurisdictions. Recent State budget changes replaced VLF with property tax, which grows proportionately with increases in assessed value of the City. The proposed project will add about 0.37 percent to the current assessed value in Cupertino (assuming no other assessed value growth for simplification purposes) and will generate the same increased percentage in in-lieu VLF revenues (see Table 5). Property Transfer Tax The project will generate real estate transfer tax revenue associated with future turnover in ownership. This analysis assumes that ownership of the hotel is likely to turnover every 25 years, an annual turnover rate of 4.0 percent. 4 The property transfer tax rate accruing to the City General Fund is $0.55 per $1,000 of the property value, as shown in Table 6. Table 6 Property Transfer Tax Revenue 4 For institutional investors of commercial real estate a typical holding period is five to seven years (Ciochetti and Fisher, 2002). This analysis assumes a significantly longer holding period due to the property tax benefits of long-term ownership in California. Item Annual Total at Buildout Property Value Hotel $500,000 Per Room $78,000,000 Average Annual Turnover Hotel 4.0%$3,120,000 Property Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 in value $1,716 Assumption / Factor Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 8 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Transient Occupancy Tax The hotel is expected to help satisfy strong lodging demand in the local market. Consistent with the GPA application, this analysis assumes the 156 hotel rooms planned for the project achieve an average daily room rate of $300. This analysis assumes that the hotel stabilizes at 70 percent occupancy. The estimate of TOT is calculated by applying the current rate of 12 percent to the total room revenue generated by new hotel, as shown in Table 7. Table 7 Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Utility Tax The City of Cupertino collects tax revenue on utility charges for services provided in the City. New residents and employees will expand the use of utilities in the City. This analysis estimates an average monthly utility expense of $150 per employee. The City of Cupertino collects 2.4 percent of utility charges. Table 8 presents utility user tax revenue attributable to the proposed project at buildout. Table 8 Utility User Tax Revenue Item Assumptions Annual Total at Buildout Hotel Rooms 156 Average Daily Room Charge $300 Average Occupancy 70% Average Annual Revenue $11,957,400 Total TOT Revenue 12.0%$1,434,888 % of Total Citywide FY2016-17 TOT Revenue (illustrative)21.4% Annual Total at Buildout Commercial Total Employees 156 employees Monthly Utility Cost $150 per employee per month Total Annual Utility Expenses $280,800 Utility User Tax Revenue 2.4% of utility bill $6,739 Assumption Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 9 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Revenues from Other Taxes and Fees In addition to the key revenues described above, other taxes and fees are estimated to be generated by the project. Specifically, franchise fee revenue and business license revenue, which reflect averages derived from City budget documents (see Table 4), are calculated for the hotel. Table 9 presents forecasting assumptions and revenue estimates from other taxes and fees. Table 9 Revenue from Other Taxes and Fees General Fund Expenditures This fiscal analysis estimates the costs attributable to population and employment growth by characterizing how expenses will change for each City department. For some departments, population and employment growth in the City will not dramatically alter operations. For example, administrative functions in the City are not likely to scale up significantly to accommodate new projects. Alternatively, departments that provide services directly to residents and businesses likely will increase their operations and costs to accommodate new populations. It is important to note that a range of external factors may influence responses to growth and cost effects in the future. Examples of factors that are beyond the control of the City and its departments that may act to magnify or reduce department costs over time include:  Regional growth;  Technology;  State and federal policies; and  Environmental factors. This study does not speculate regarding the potential effects of such exogenous influences on the general fund expense budget. It focuses only on those factors attributable directly to the population growth, employment growth, and land use changes generated by the proposed GPA. The fiscal analysis model relies on categorization of the likely budgetary response to population and employment growth for each department. The anticipated response to growth is expressed for fiscal modeling purposes in terms of “fixed expenses” and “variable expenses” within the department budget. Item Annual Total at Buildout Franchise Fees (1)$38.21 per service population 78 service pop. $2,981 Business License (1)$17.67 per employee 156 employees $2,757 Subtotal $5,738 Allocation Factor Project Characteristic (1) Franchise Fee and Business License allocation factors are both based on existing general fund revenue per capita. Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 10 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx The fixed expenses are the portion of a City department’s budget which is not affected by population and employment growth. Even a department which is anticipated to grow largely in step with the City’s service population likely would have some fixed cost. For example, in most cases each department has only one director position, which is a fixed expense for the department. While the department may increase staffing to accommodate growth, the department will not add another director. The variable expenses of a department are those that do increase with growth. As the City grows, increased demand for services requires some departments to scale up operations to meet new demand. The portion of a department’s budget that scales up is identified as the variable share of the budget. EPS uses a per-capita cost approach to estimate department costs attributable to new residents and workers. The variable portion of each department budget is used to determine the per-capita cost, as shown in Table 10. Then, to determine the new General Fund expenditures generated by the proposed project, the per-capita factors are multiplied by the projected increase in service population or population, as appropriate. Innovation and Technology and Non-Departmental expenditures are not estimated because the project is not expected to generate new ongoing costs in to these service providers. Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Fiscal Impact Review Page 11 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Table 10 FY2016-17 Expenditure Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors ItemCity General Fund Expenses (FY2016-17) Percent Variable (1)Annual Variable ExpensesPer Capita General Fund ExpenseProject Population/ Service PopulationAnnual Total at BuildoutGeneral Government (2)$11,341,627 10% $1,134,163 75,892 Service Pop. $14.94 78 $1,166Police (3) $11,884,384 90% $10,695,946 75,892 Service Pop. $140.94 78 $10,993Innovation and Technology (4)$924,006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ARecreation &Community Services$10,484,573 75% $7,863,430 58,917 Population $133.47 0 $0Planning & Community Development$10,273,323 50% $5,136,661.50 75,892 Service Pop. $67.68 78 $5,279Public Works (5)$19,343,167 75% $14,507,375 75,892 Service Pop. $191.16 78 $14,910Non-Departmental $12,971,373N/AN/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A Total Expenditures $77,222,453$32,349(1) Percentage of costs that are population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges.(2) Includes Administration, Administrative Services, and Council and Commissions.(4) Formerly known as Public Affairs and includes services such as videography, applications, IT and GIS.Sources: City of Cupertino FY 2016/17 Adopted Budget Estimating Factors (3) Reflects the contract portion of the police department's budget. To the extent the cumulative effect of new growth triggers the contract terms exceeding the cap agreed upon in 2014, the cost impact may be above that estimated based on the average cost approach.(5) Includes administration, environmental programs, development services,service center, grounds, streets, trees and right of way, facilities and fleet, transportation, and other programs. Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Project Fiscal Impact Review Page 12 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Fiscal Impact of Proposed Project Table 11 summarizes the fiscal impact of the hotel development proposal on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund, with forecasted revenues and expenditure estimates based on the methodology described above. The annual fiscal impact of the proposed GPA is estimated at about $1.5 million. Table 11 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Hotel at Buildout (2017$) Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Property Tax $55,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $26,000 Property Transfer Tax $2,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $1,435,000 Utility Tax $7,000 Franchise Fees $3,000 Business Licenses $3,000 Total Revenues $1,531,000 General Fund Expenditures General Government $1,000 Police $11,000 Planning & Community Development $5,000 Public Works $15,000 Total Expenditures $32,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,497,000 Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Project Fiscal Impact Review Page 13 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Existing Conditions Estimate In order to quantify the fiscal impact of the existing shopping center located at 10931 North De Anza Boulevard, the same fiscal methodology is applied to existing land use program as the proposed GPA. The site currently is occupied by an automobile service establishment located within a building of approximately 8,000 square feet. The existing use provides a positive fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund of about $10,000 a year, as shown in Table 12. Table 12 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Hotel Existing Conditions (2017$) Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$11,000 Property Tax $1,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $1,000 Utility Tax $1,000 Total Revenues $14,000 General Fund Expenditures Police $1,000 Planning & Community Development $1,000 Public Works $2,000 Total Expenditures $4,000 Net Impact on General Fund $10,000 Memorandum July 21, 2017 Cupertino Hotel Project Fiscal Impact Review Page 14 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_CupertinoHotelMemo_072117.docx Net Fiscal Impact This hotel project, as proposed, will result in an annual net fiscal benefit to the City of Cupertino General Fund. This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the GPA proposal on the City’s General Fund is approximately $1.5 million, as shown in Table 13. The net increase in General Fund revenues from the project at buildout is estimated at roughly $1.5 million annually more than existing uses. The net increase in General Fund expenditures associated with the Project is estimated at approximately $28,000 per year more than existing uses. Table 13 Net Fiscal Impact Summary (2017$) Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues $1,531,000 $14,000 $1,517,000 General Fund Expenditures $32,000 $4,000 $28,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,497,000 $10,000 $1,487,000 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2837 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:7/21/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: A proposal to demolish an existing ~71,254 sq.ft. commercial shopping center and construct one of the two alternative mixed-use developments at the Oaks Shopping Center site that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of one of the alternatives for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPAAuth-2017-02; Applicant: KT Urban (Mark Tersini); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 326-27-039, -040 and -041) Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:16C - Staff Report for Oaks Shopping Center 16C.1 - Alt. 1 (mixed-use residential) proposed plans 16C.2 - Alt. 2 (mixed-use gateway) proposed plans 16C.3 - Project Description and other studies 16C.4 - EPS Fiscal Analysis for Oaks Shopping Center 16C.5 - Public comments Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:A proposal to demolish an existing ~71,254 sq.ft.commercial shopping center and construct one of the two alternative mixed-use developments at the Oaks Shopping Center site that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of one of the alternatives for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications.(Application No.(s):GPAAuth- 2017-02;Applicant:KT Urban (Mark Tersini);Location:21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 326-27-039, -040 and -041) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject A proposal to demolish an existing ~71,254 sq.ft. commercial shopping center and construct one of the two alternative mixed-use developments at the Oaks Shopping Center site that requires City Council authorization for formal submission of one of the alternatives for formal submission of General Plan Amendment applications. (Application No.(s): GPA Auth-2017-02; Applicant: KT Urban (Mark Tersini); Location: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 326-27-039, -040 and -041) Recommended Action Determine if the proposal is authorized to move forward to apply for General Plan Amendments. Discussion Background On September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future General Plan Amendment (GPA) applications. Additional details on this process is available in the cover staff report for this item. The Analysis section below reviews the project based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the procedures adopted by the Council. Pursuant to adoption of the procedures, the current applicant made an application for this property in 2015 which was heard at a public hearing in 2016. Authorization for that project was denied on a 4-1 vote on February 2, 2016. There are similarities in the project components for the currently proposed “mixed-use gateway” or Alternative 2 and the project proposed in 2015. The most noteworthy differences between the two alternatives currently proposed and the 2015 application are addition of these community amenities: transit center, the inclusion of a community room and theater, increased contributions toward city transportation and frontage improvements. Alternative 1 is an entirely different proposal, which replaces the office and hotel buildings with additional housing. The applicant estimates the dollar value of these community benefits higher than the previous proposal by approximately $4.6 million. While there is additional narrative about changes from the prior submittal in the application materials, it should be noted that applications are not compared to their own previous submittals, but rather to the City Council’s evaluation criteria for GPA authorization. Analysis Introduction The applicant proposes two development alternatives, identified as “mixed-used residential” (Alternative 1) (see Attachment 16C.1) and “mixed-use gateway” (Alternative 2) (see Attachment 16C.2) Both alternatives include 69,500 sq.ft. of commercial space (see Attachment 16C.3). In addition to the commercial space, Alternative 1 includes 605 residential units while Alternative 2 includes 270 residential units, a 170-room hotel, and 280,000 sq.ft. of office space. The site plan components common to both alternatives include a 27,500 sq.ft. movie theater, 42,000 sq.ft. ground floor retail-commercial space, a 4,000 sq.ft. community center, transit center, three levels of underground parking, and below-market rate housing units. Alternative 1: Mixed-use Residential Alternative 2: Mixed-use Gateway Project Location and Surrounding Uses The project is located at the northeast intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and State Route 85 and at the western end of the Heart of the City Special Area, known as the Oaks Gateway Node. The site is currently developed with a ~71,254 sq.ft. commercial shopping center, accessed from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. Mary Avenue begins along the eastern border and wraps around to form the northern border of the site. The Heart of the City Special area is identified in the General Plan and specific plan as a significant commercial corridor. The Heart of the City Specifi c Plan (“HOC”) identifies this corridor as accommodating “a variety of land use opportunities of well-planned and designed commercial, office, residential development, enhanced activity nodes, safe and efficient circulation, and access for all modes of transportation between activity centers that help focus and support activity in the centers.” The Oaks Gateway node is envisioned as a gateway retail and shopping node with new residential, if allowed, designed on the “mixed-use village” concept described in the General Plan. Surrounding uses include a 517-unit (two-story) apartment complex to the north, Highway 85 to the west, De Anza College and Flint Center (three-story; 109 feet) to the south across Stevens Creek Boulevard, and the Senior Center (one-story) and Memorial Park to the east. The tallest structures in this area which exceed the City’s 45 -foot height restrictions are located at the De Anza College campus. Project Data Table 1 indicates the proposed project data for the two Alternatives along with General Plan amendments, or variance/exceptions, requested and/or required. Standard Allowed/Required/ Existing Alternative 1 “mixed-use residential” Alternative 2 “mixed-use gateway” General Plan designation: Commercial/Residential Commercial/Residential Commercial/Office/ Residential (GPA required) Zoning designation: Planned Development with general commercial and residential uses – P(CG, Res) No change Planned Development with general commercial, professional office and residential uses (Rezoning required) Lot Area 7.9 acres (after dedication) 7.9 acres (after dedication) 7.9 acres (after dedication) Lot coverage: ~21% existing (no maximum) 40% 42% Floor Area Ratio: ~21% existing (no maximum) 210.5% 215.7% Development allocation: Office: - - 280,000 sq. ft. (GPA required) Commercial: ~71,254 sq. ft. (e) 69,500 sq. ft. 69,500 sq. ft. Hotel: - - 170 rooms (GPA required) Residential: 197 units 448 units (GPA required) 200 units Density 25 du/acre 56.70 du/acre (GPA required) 25.31 du/acre (GPA required) Number of very low income units needed for 35% Density Bonus (11%) 22 units 50 units 22 units Density Bonus (Market-rate) Units 69 units 157 units 70 units Total Residential Units 266 units 605 units 270 units Market rate units 244 units 535 units 200 units Age-restricted Senior Units - 70 units 70 units Below Market Rate (senior) units - 67 units 40 units Very low income units (senior) - 49 units (10%) 22 units (11%) Low income units (senior) - 18 units (4%) 18 units (4%) Market rate senior units - 3 units 30 units Table 1: Project Data Standard Allowed/Required/ Existing Alternative 1 “mixed-use residential” Alternative 2 “mixed-use gateway” Height Office Building 45 feet - 88 feet (GPA required) Hotel Building 45 feet - 70 feet (GPA required) Residential Buildings 45 feet 35 – 75 feet (GPA required) 35 – 60 feet (GPA required Slope line from Stevens Creek Boulevard (setback : height) Office - 3:1 (GPA required) Hotel - 2:1 (GPA required) Residential 1:1 1:1 1:1 Setbacks Front (Stevens Creek Blvd.): 9 foot setback from property line + 26 feet landscape easement = 35 foot total 35 feet 35 feet Side – Interior (along State Route 85): 1/2 height of building or 10 feet whichever is greater 0 feet (HOC exception required) 10 feet (HOC exception required) Side– Street side (Mary Ave): 9 feet 9 feet 9 feet Parking Parking study required to determine number of vehicular and bike parking spaces required for project. Vehicular Parking Residential – 2 per unit BMR units – based on size Office – 1/285 sq.ft. Hotel – 1/room + 1/employee 1,480 spaces plus shared parking 1,480 spaces plus shared parking Bike Parking Residential – 2 spaces/unit Office – 1/1,250 sq.ft. or 1/15 employees Hotel – 1/20,000 sq.ft. General Commercial – varies 412 spaces 440 spaces Table 1: Project Data Standard Allowed/Required/ Existing Alternative 1 “mixed-use residential” Alternative 2 “mixed-use gateway” Open space Private Open Space – Residential 60 sq. ft./unit 60 sq. ft./unit 60 sq. ft./unit Common Open Space Residential Common Open Space – Total 150 sq.ft./unit 70 sq. ft./unit or 42,350 sq. ft. total (HOC exception required) 80 sq. ft./unit or 21,600 sq. ft. total (HOC exception required) Residential Landscape 70-80% of total common open space 70% of total common open space or 29,675 sq. ft. 70% of total common open space or 15,120 sq. ft. Residential Hardscape 20-30% of total common open space 30% of total common open space or 12,675 sq. ft. 30% of total common open space or 6,480 sq. ft. Retail Common Open Space 2.5% of gross floor area 1,750 sq. ft. 1,750 sq. ft. Table 1: Project Data Evaluation Criteria Discussion The following is a discussion of the project relative to the evaluation criteria established by the City Council procedure for General Plan Amendment authorization requests. For details on the criteria, please see the Cover Report. General Plan Goals achieved by the Proposal Site and Architectural Design and Neighborhood Compatibility  In both alternatives, the tallest building heights along Stevens Creek Boulevard are taller than adjacent buildings, except for the 109-foot tall Flint Center at the De Anza College, which is set back considerably from the street. In order to be more in scale with the Glenbrook apartment buildings across the street, heights for portions of the residential buildings closest to Mary Avenue are reduced.  The proposal envisions retaining general commercial/retail uses within the project, which is required in the General Plan.  In both Alternatives 1 and 2, access to the site is in the same location. If authorized, additional revisions would be required to refine the site plan to accommodate city policies such as minimizing driveway cuts on Stevens Creek and near busy intersections (85 on-ramp); identifying locations for trash enclosures, deliveries, staging areas for move-ins/move-outs and truck parking (preferably away from public view and/or underground); EV charging stations, and ADA requirements.  Architectural review will be required to ensure that the project meets high quality expectations in terms of massing, building articulation and materials. The plans may need to be modified to reduce the sizes of the units and/or the buildings may need to have upper floors reduced or set back along the street to ensure neighborhood compatibility. The proposed buildings must consider distinctive entry features, roof forms and variety of facades as encouraged by the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Net Fiscal Impacts The policy adopted by the City Council for processing General Plan amendment authorization requires the evaluation of whether a project would have positive or negative impacts to the fiscal base. While the applicant has provided a fiscal impact analysis (see Attachment 16C.3), the City does not rely on this report for this analysis. The City relies on the fiscal impact report prepared by the city’s third-party consultant, Economics and Planning Systems (EPS), which is included in Attachment 17C.4 and summarized in this section.  Alternative 1 (commercial/residential) The summary of findings from the EPS report indicates that, as proposed, the commercial/residential project would generate a net negative fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund of approximately $146,000 Property tax revenue will account for the largest revenue source to the city from this project.  Alternative 2 (commercial/residential/office) The fiscal impact analysis prepared by EPS indicates that, as proposed, the project would generate a net positive fiscal revenue of $1.13 million. A sensitivity analysis indicates that the hotel provides the most fiscal benefits in the project through transient occupancy tax. Provision of Affordable Housing The project site is included in the City’s 2014-2022 Housing Element with a 200-unit capacity, an allowed density of 25 units/acre, acreage of ~8 acres, with a net acreage shown on the applicant’s civil plans as ~7.9 acres after required dedications. At the time of adoption of the Housing Element, the net acreage of the site after dedications was not known. The maximum residential yield for the site (at 25 units/acre) is estimated at ~197 units. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program The project proposes to provide 11% of the total number of allowable units, as very low income units and an additional 4% of the total number of allowable units, as low income units, for a total of 15% affordable units in both alternatives. With the provision of 15% of the total units as affordable units, the applicant will not be required to pay any Below Market Rate Housing Mitigation Fees. State Density Bonus Law Provisions Since both alternatives provide affordable housing, the projects are eligible to receive a density bonus to allow the development of additional market-rate units and a reduction in parking standards for the entire project as allowed by State Law. In addition, the projects may apply to receive incentives/concessions and waivers. These have been discussed below.  Density Bonus –  Alternative 1 (commercial/residential): In this Alternative, the applicant is proposing to provide 49 senior units affordable to the very low income category. However, this is only 10% of the 448 units proposed. Therefore, the project would be eligible for a 32.5% Density Bonus. As proposed, the project does not comply with the Chapter 19.56 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. While, the City’s local density bonus ordinance (Section 19.56.030F(6)) allows the City to grant bonuses greater than 35%, solely at the City’s discretion, when a 100% affordable project is proposed. While the applicant is required to apply for a General Plan Amendment to increase the density on the site in this Alternative, in order to comply with Chapter 19.56, the applicant has the following options: 1. Increase the proposed number very low income level units by one unit; or 2. Reduce the total number of units by 11 units, since project would be eligible for only a 32.5% density bonus with 10% very low income units. ((605 units – (448 units * 1.325)) = (605 units – 594 units) = 11 units; or 3. Propose a 100% affordable project.  Alternative 2 (commercial/residential/office): Density Bonus Law would allow 266 units total (197 allowed units + 69 bonus units) to be built on the site. The proposed number of units is 270 units, or 4 more units than the project is entitled to, with a 35% density bonus. Therefore, the applicant has the following options: 1. Reduce the proposed number of units in Alternative 1 by four units in order to avoid a General Plan Amendment for density or 2. Apply for a General Plan Amendment to increase the density on the site or 3. Propose a 100% affordable project.  Parking Reductions – While a parking study, on-site and off-site, would be required to analyze the proposal (due to frontage improvements and revisions to on -street parking spaces) for the entire project, State Density Bonus Law restricts the City from requiring projects with affordable units to provide more than one parking space for studio and one-bedroom units; two parking spaces for two- and three-bedroom units; and 2.5 parking spaces for 4-bedroom units and larger. Additional restrictions on parking requirements are applicable if the project is within ¼ mile of a transit stop.  Alternative 1 (commercial/residential): The unit type mix is 505 studio and one- bedroom units, and 100 two-bedroom units. The applicant is proposing to provide 1,160 spaces (without density bonus, the parking requirement would be 1,210 spaces). Therefore, the residential parking appears to exceed the required 705 spaces for Alternative 1.  Alternative 2 (commercial/residential/office): The unit type mix is 229 studio and one-bedroom units, and 41 two-bedroom units. The project does not propose any 4-bedroom units or larger. For Alternative 2, the residential parking conforms to the city standard of two spaces per unit. If authorized, the final parking count will be confirmed during project review.  Incentives and Concessions - State Density Bonus Law allows this developer to request two incentives and concessions. Permissible incentives and concessions include, but are not limited to: 1. Modifications of Development Standards: Reducing development standards or a zoning code requirement or architectural design requirement, such as setbacks, square footage, or height, which results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions; 2. Mixed-Use Project: Approving mixed-use zoning in conjunction with a housing project, if the non-residential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development, and if the non-residential land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located; 3. Other: Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the City, which result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. Incentives and concessions are intended to make the affordable housing financially feasible. The City’s density bonus ordinance requires the developer to provide a pro forma to demonstrate that the incentives and concessions are actually needed to provide the affordable housing.  Waivers of Development Standards - State Density Bonus Law also allows the developer to request waivers of any city development standards (setback, height, etc.) that will “physically preclude” the project from being built with the density bonus and incentives to which the project is entitled. The formal project review would need to determine what incentives the developer is entitled to and then evaluate any requests for waivers. Effect of Density Bonus Law on proposals Under State Density Bonus law, if a proposed housing development qualifies for a density bonus and a parking reduction, the City must grant them if it approves the project. Therefore, if the City authorizes any alternative, and considers approval of that alternative in the future, the City must grant the 35% density bonus and any parking reductions proposed in conformance with Chapter 19.56 of the Municipal Code. However, requests for incentives and waivers are more discretionary. An incentive must be necessary to provide for affordable housing costs as previously discussed. If, for instance, the density bonus by itself provides adequate additional profit to provide for affordable housing costs, the City is not required to approve any incentives. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, any proposed mixed use must: 1) reduce the cost of the housing development; 2) be compatible with the housing development; and 3) be compatible with existing or planned development in the area. The proposed increase in density and building heights may be requested as an incentive under Density Bonus Law and not as a General Plan Amendment. Additionally, an incentive for mixed use zoning may be requested if Alternative 2 is authorized, to eventually approve the project (including the office and hotel uses) under the Density Bonus Law. Waivers must be granted only if they would “physically preclude” development of the proposed housing with the incentives and density bonus to which the project is entitled. Therefore, if authorized, the applicant may not be required to apply for a Heart of the City Exception for the reduced common landscaped open space and side yard setbacks proposed, if the developer can provide a valid pro forma that demonstrates that the reduction in these standards is required to make the housing financially feasible. Additionally, the reduction in building slope lines may also be requested as a waiver. The developer is requesting for a waiver in park impact fees for the affordable units and the senior units. Environmental Sustainability Some project features are encouraged in the General Plan and is a project bonus. Others are statutory requirements, as noted below, and not a project bonus,  Encouraged in the General Plan and is a project bonus: 1. Transit center 2. The proposed project will be built with environmentally preferable products with a high-recycled content, sensitive to the use of natural resources.  Statutory requirements and not a project bonus: 1. LEED Silver certification for all buildings (CBC) 2. Low impact development methods such as pervious surfaces (MRP/C3) 3. Native and drought-tolerant plants (WELO) General Plan Amendments Requested The general plan amendments requested are as follows:  Alternative 1 a. Increase residential density from 25 du/acre to 58 du/acre (not including density bonus units); b. Additional residential allocation of 251 units. (448 units – (7.9 acres * 25 du/ac)) = (448 units - 197 units) = 251 units; c. Building height increase up to 75 feet (where 45 feet is allowed).  Alternative 2 a. Increase residential density from 25 du/acre to 25.31 du/acre (not including density bonus units); b. Add office to the General Plan land use designation and zoning (where commercial/residential is allowed); c. Development allocation of 170 hotel rooms (where none are available); d. Development allocation for 280,000 sq. ft. of office allocation - The applicant proposes to obtain allocation from the “major companies” allocation. However, the city requires that this allocation cannot be utilized under speculation. A major employer must own and occupy the site. Therefore, the request does not qualify for major employer allocation and must request a general plan amendment for office allocation; e. Building height increase up to 88 feet (where 45 feet is allowed); f. Amend building slopeline to 3:1 for office and 2:1 for hotel (where 1:1 is allowed). Proposed Voluntary Community Amenities Within the City Council policy for General Plan amendments, voluntary community amenities are defined as facilities, land and/or funding contributions to ensure that any development with a General Plan amendment application enhances the quality of life in the City with contributions to schools, public open space, public facilities and transportation. The following table outlines the qualifying proposed community amenities whose value has been quantified. Table 2: Community Amenity Summary Description Beneficiary Amount Comments School Resources Cash contribution for construction of permanent school room facilities CUSD $1.0 million This is a qualified community amenity because it benefits a school project. Public Open Space Cash contributions to public open space (such as Memorial Park) City of Cupertino $300,000 While not in a current CIP program, the funds would be a placeholder; applicant has indicated that they would support the city’s final decision on where funds are applied. Description Beneficiary Amount Comments Public Facilities Public Art City of Cupertino $250,000 above City requirement Applicant has indicated that they would support the city’s final decision on where the additional funds are applied. 4,000 sq.ft. Community Center within project Residents $0 There are no details on use and availability of this space and therefore, cannot be quantified. Transportation Mary Avenue Road improvements, safety enhancements and safe routes to schools City of Cupertino $3 million This is a qualified community amenity. Construction of on- site transit center City of Cupertino $3.5 million This is a qualified community amenity. Construction of bike trail along western project boundary City of Cupertino $250,000 This may be a project requirement. Cash contribution to future city-wide shuttle program City of Cupertino $400,000 This is a qualified one-time community amenity. The project could be requested to make an on-going annual contribution like other projects, including Marina and the Hamptons. Total City Estimated Value of Qualified Community Amenities $8.7 million Total value per sq. ft. Alternative 1 $12.02 Total value per sq. ft. Alternative 2 $11.73 In Alternative 2, there is a proposed incubator space within the office building. While the incubator space meets General Plan policy LU-9 to “promote a strong local economy that attracts and retains a variety of businesses,” it is not included in the amenities list because the details regarding value cannot currently be quantified. The applicant proposes to enter into a Development Agreement with the City that includes the voluntary community amenities shown in Table 2 and the terms regarding the non-quantified amenities could likewise be added with greater detail. Staff Time and Resources The Planning Division will dedicate a project manager, either staff or consultant based on availability, to guide the project through the entitlement process, appropriate environmental and city related reviews. It is estimated that approximately 0.5 FTE hours will be required to process this proposal. The applicant is responsible for paying staff time and consultant costs. Public Noticing and Outreach See Cover Report for details on noticing and outreach. As of publication of this staff report on July 25, 2017, staff has received comments regarding the proposal – some in support and some in opposition of the proposal (see Attachment 16C.5.) Fiscal Impact The project net fiscal impact to the City’s budget has been discussed previously in the “Net Fiscal Impacts” section above. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Catarina Kidd, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: 16C.1 - Alternative 1 (mixed-use residential) proposed plans 16C.2 - Alternative 2 (mixed-use gateway) proposed plans 16C.3 - Project narrative and other materials 16C.4 - Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared by Economics and Planning Systems, Inc., dated July 17, 2017 16C.5 - Public Comments received as of July 25, 2017 REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:38:36 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:38:36 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.100 COVER SHEET ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPWESTPORT CUPERTINO WESTPORT CUPERTINO CUPERTINO, CA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION DRAWING INDEX OWNER KT URBAN 21710 STEVENS CREEK BLVD #200 CUPERTINO, CA 95104 P: 408.257.2100 CONTACT: MARK TERSINI ARCHITECT C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND, OR 97209 P: 503.244.2100 CONTACT: KEVIN SAUSER ksauser@c2karch.com CONTACT/APPLICANT: SAMUEL SANDERSON sams@c2karch.com CIVIL SANDIS 636 9TH STREET OAKLAND, CA 94607 P: 510.590.3402 CONTACT: AMY TAYLOR ataylor@sandis.net LANDSCAPE PLACE 735 NW 18TH AVE. PORTLAND, OR 97209 P: 503.334.1630 CONTACT: MIGUEL CAMACHO SERNA miguel.camacho.serna@place.la SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME G.100 GENERAL COVER SHEET - ALT 1 A.101 ARCHITECTURAL LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - ALT 1 STEVENS CREEK BLVDSTATE ROUTE 85DE ANZA COLLEGE MEMORIAL PARK MARY AVE STERLING RDL.101 LANDSCAPE PLAN - ALT 1 LANDSCAPE G.101 G.102 G.103 G.104 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN - ALT 1 PROJECT SUMMARY - ALT 1 SITE PLAN SETBACKS - ALT 1 1:1 SLOPE SETBACKS - ALT 1 C.101 C.102 CIVIL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN - ALT 1 SITE & STORMWATER MGT. PLAN - ALT 1 G.105 OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS - ALT 1 A.102 UPPER LEVEL BUILDING PLANS - ALT 1 A.103 PARKING GARAGE PLAN - ALT 1 A.104 SITE SECTIONS - ALT 1 A.105 STREET ELEVATIONS - ALT 1 A.106 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALT 1 A.107 A.108 RESIDENTIAL - RETAIL BUILDINGS A,B,C - ALT 1 A.109 RESIDENTIAL - RETAIL BUILDING D,E - ALT 1 PROJECT TEAMVICINITY MAP A.110 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS - ALT 1 PHASING PLAN - ALT 1 A.111 NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING HEIGHTS - ALT 1 C.001 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY - ALT 1 L.102 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN - ALT 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME G.200 GENERAL COVER SHEET - ALT 2 A.201 ARCHITECTURAL LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - ALT 2 L.201 LANDSCAPE PLAN - ALT 2 LANDSCAPE G.201 G.202 G.203 G.204 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN - ALT 2 PROJECT SUMMARY - ALT 2 SITE PLAN SETBACKS - ALT 2 1:1 SLOPE SETBACKS - ALT 2 C.201 C.202 CIVIL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN - ALT 2 SITE & STORMWATER MGT. PLAN - ALT 2 G.205 OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS - ALT 2 A.202 UPPER LEVEL BUILDING PLANS - ALT 2 A.203 PARKING GARAGE PLAN - ALT 2 A.204 SITE SECTIONS - ALT 2 A.205 STREET ELEVATIONS - ALT 2 A.206 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALT 2 A.208 A.209 RESIDENTIAL - RETAIL BUILDINGS A,B,C - ALT 2 A.211 HOTEL BUILDING - ALT 2 A.212 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS - ALT 2 PHASING PLAN - ALT 2 A.213 NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING HEIGHTS - ALT 2 C.002 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY - ALT 2 L.202 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN - ALT 2 A.207 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALT 2 A.210 OFFICE BUILDING - ALT 2 REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:38:46 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:38:46 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.101 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP ZONING CODE DATA: 1. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: 5. AUTO PARKING: 2. HEIGHT: 3. MINIMUM YARDS BUILDING SETBACKS : - Stevens Creek Blvd (South side): 35'-0" from edge of curb - Mary Ave (East side):9'-0" from property line - Mary Ave (North Side):9'-0" from property line - Highway 85 (West Side):35'-6" from property line (eq. to 1/2 ht. of Bldg D) - See General Plan Amendments request below. See Architectural Site Plan sheet G.103 for Building Setbacks dimensions. - Zoning Max Allowable Height: 45'-0" Max - Actual Project Max Height: 75'-0" to top of roof of Bldg D - See Amendments request below. See Building Code Data for heights of each proposed building. 4. OPEN SPACE: - See Open Space Area Calcs Site Plan sheet G.105. No "Recreation Area" has been designated within this project. 6. BICYCLE PARKING: - Required Bicycle Parking for Each Building Use, per Parking Table 19.124.040(A): Residential (1/ 2 units): 303 Spaces (Class I) Residential (1/ 10 units): 61 Spaces (Class II) Retail (1/ 5,000 SF): 14 Spaces (Class II) Transit Center:10 Spaces (Class II) Total Required Spaces: 388 Spaces - Provided Parking for Each Building Use: Residential:303 Spaces (Class I) Residential:61 Spaces (Class II) Retail:14 Spaces (Class II) Transit Center:10 Spaces (Class I) Total Provided Spaces: 388 Spaces - See architectural sheets A.103 for bicycle parking locations. 7. REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (REFER TO APPLICATION): a. Increase in Building Height: Request to revise from 45'-0" to 75'-0" for tallest buildings on site. b. Increase in Residential Unit Allocation: Request to revise from 200 units to 448 units (for a total of 605 units on site). See Application for further explanation. BUILDING CODE DATA: 2016 California Building Standards Codes & Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.04 - 2016 California Building Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Electrical Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Mechanical Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Plumbing Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Energy Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Fire Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, w/ local amendments Accessibility - Fair Housing Safe Harbor: 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1 - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design 1. LOCAL CODES : 2. BUILDING USE AND OCCUPANCY : Occupancy Groups (Separated & Non-Separated) - Residential-Retail Buildings: Residential Units: Group R-2, Separated Lobby/Office:Group A-3, Non-separated Fit Center: Group A-3, Non-separated Conference Room: Group A-3, Separated Theater:Group A-1, Separated Retail:Groups A-2 and M, Separated - Transit Center:Group A-3, Separated BUILDING CODE DATA (CONT.):PROJECT SUMMARY: - Street Address: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014 - Parcel 1 (APN:326-27-039) and Parcel 2 (APN: 326-27-040 & 041) per Map 838, pg 24-25 1. STREET ADDRESS AND APN FOR SITE: 2. PROJECT SUMMARY: 8. REQUESTED HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN EXCEPTIONS (REFER TO APPLICATION): a. Side Interior Setback: Request to revise setback at the western property line along Highway 85, specifically at the Transit Center, from 1/2 the building height to 0'-0" setback. b. Residential Common Open Space: Request to revise the residential common open space from 150 SF/unit to 70 SF/unit. The landscape common open space will be 70% of the total. - Required Parking for Each Building Use, per Parking Table 19.124.040(A) for Retail and Residential: Conf Rm/Community Space: 39 Spaces (Uni-size) Retail (42,000 SF):168 Spaces (Uni-size) Residential (605 units):1,210 Spaces (9'-6"x20') Total Required Spaces: 1,417 Spaces - Required Parking for Residential, per Density Bonus Ordinance Table 19.56.040B: (1) Space per Studio & 1-Bedroom Units, for 505 Units (2) Spaces per 2-Bedroom Units, for 200 Units Residential (605 units):705 Spaces (9'-6"x20') Revised Total Required Spaces: 912 Spaces - Provided Parking for Each Building Use: Retail:168 Spaces (Uni-size) Theater:102 Spaces (Uni-size) Transit Center:50 Spaces (Uni-size) Residential:1,160 Spaces (9'-6"x20') Add'l Grade-Level Spaces:23 Spaces (Uni-size) Total Provided Spaces: 1,503 Spaces - Provided Parking meets the reduced parking demand of 1,140 spaces for the buildings per SANDIS' Parking Assessment Letter; see Parking Garage sheet A.103 for Parking Matrix and parking layout. 3. BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS : Story, Height, and Area Limitations: - Residential-Retail Building A - Construction Type VA over IA: Allowable Stories: 4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 504.4 and Section 510.2 Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 504.3 Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: 24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per Table 506.2 and Section 506.2; Unlimited for Type IA Retail Actual Building Area: 33,740 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide residential floor levels; 13,875 GSF Retail - Residential-Retail Building B - Construction Type VA over IA: Allowable Stories: 4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 504.4 and Section 510.2 Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 504.3 Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: 24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per Table 506.2 and Section 506.2; Unlimited for Type IA Retail Actual Building Area: 23,400 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide residential floor levels; 15,700 GSF Retail - Apartment-Retail Building C - Construction Type VA over IA: Allowable Stories: 4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 504.4 and Section 510.2 Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 504.3 Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: 24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per Table 506.2 and Section 506.2; Unlimited for Type IA Retail Actual Building Area: 14,440 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide residential floor levels; 12,425 GSF Retail - Residential Building D - Construction Type IA: Allowable Stories: Unlimited Stories allowed per Table 504.4 Actual Stories:7 Stories, not a "high rise" building Maximum Building Height:Unlimited per Table 504.3 Actual Building Height: 75'-0" to top of roof (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: Unlimited per Table 506.2 Actual Building Area: 230,810 GSF - Residential-Retail Building E - Construction Type IA: Allowable Stories: Unlimited Stories allowed per Table 504.4 Actual Stories:6 Stories, not a "high rise" building Maximum Building Height:75'-0" per Section 504.3 Actual Building Height: 70'-0" to top of roof parapet (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: Unlimited per Table 506.2 Actual Building Area: 157,520 GSF (incl Comm Space and Theater Lobby) - Below-Grade Parking Garage - Construction Type IA: Allowable Stories: Unlimited Stories allowed per Table 504.4 Actual Stories:3 Stories below grade Allowable Building Area: Unlimited per Table 506.2 Actual Building Area: 720,000 GSF - Transit Center - Construction Type VB, Occupancy A-1, Sprinklered NFPA 13 (S1) RESIDENTIAL UNIT MATRIX: 4. OCCUPANT LOAD: - Res-Retail Building A - Res: 640 Occupants (127,820 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building A - Retail: 232 Occupants (13,875 SF / 60 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building B - Res: 450 Occupants (96,465 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building B - Retail: 262 Occupants (15,710 / 60 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building C - Res: 290 Occupants (61,700 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building C - Retail: 208 Occupants (12,425 SF / 60 GSF per Occ) - Residential Building D: 1,155 Occupants (230,810 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building E - Res: 743 Occupants (148,520 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Theater - Building E: 102 Occupants (27,500 SF / Occ per seating) - Below-Grade Parking Garage: 3,660 Occupants (732,135 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Redevelopment of 71,254 SF Shopping Center (53,701 SF Retail, 17,503 SF Office) on 8.1 acres site, to provide mixed-use urban village with the following structures: - Residential-Retail Building A: 5-stories; 127,820 SF residenitial; 115 units; w/ 13,875 SF of ground-level retail. 12,135 SF garage w/ 10 grade-level parking spaces. - Residential-Retail Building B: 5-stories; 89,815 SF residential; 85 units;w/ 15,700 SF of ground-level retail. - Residential-Retail Building C: 5-stories; 58,060 SF residential; 70; w/ 12,425 SF of ground-level retail. - Residential-Retail Building D: 7-stories; 230,810 SF residential; 209 units. - Residential Building E: 6-stories; 148,520 SF residential; 126 units; w/ 4,000 SF Conference Facility / Community Space. - Theater at Building E: 27,500 SF; 5 theaters. 5,000 SF at Bldg E Level 1, 22,500 SF at Below-Grade Basement. - Transit Center: 1000 SF of covered Vertical Circulation to pedestrian bridge to center of Highway 85, and vehicular roundabout for unloading zone and local bus stop. Designated parking spaces in garage below. - Below-Grade Parking Garage: 3-stories; 720,000 SF; 1,470 parking spaces, w/ 230 bicycle spaces 3. GPA PRELIMINARY PLAN CONTENT REQUIREMENTS: - General Plan Land Use Designation:See Sheet G.102 - Zoning Designation:See Sheet G.102 - Scale and North Arrow:See drawings sheets - Vicinity Map:See Sheet G.000 - Site Area:See Sheet G.102 - Lot Line Dimensions:See Sheet C.101 - Proposed Program:See Sheet G.102 - Density:See Sheet G.102 - Unit Plans:See Sheet A.109 - Setbacks:See Sheets G.103 & G.104 - Site Plan, Existing:See Sheet C.101 - Site Plan, Proposed:See Sheet G.101 - Existing Buildings on Adjoining Properties: See Sheet A.111 - General Plan Amendment Requests & Heart of the City Specific Plan Exceptions: See Sheets G.102 thru G.105 - Preliminary Floor Plans:See Sheets A.101 thru A.103 - Preliminary Grading Plans, Existing:See Sheet C.101 - Preliminary Grading Plans, Proposed:See Sheet C.101 - Preliminary Elevations, Proposed:See Sheets A.105 thru A.108 - Preliminary Architectural Renderings:See Sheets A.105 thru A.108 - Proposed Materials and Colors:See Sheets A.105 thru A.108 - Preliminary Building Cross-Sections:See Sheet A.104 - Public Improvements:See Sheets C.101 and C.102 - Driveways/Parking:See Sheets A.101 and A.103 - Loading/Unloading Areas:See Sheets A.101 and A.103 - Parking (Required and Proposed):See Sheets G.102 and A.103 - Preliminary Landscape Plans:See Sheet L.101 - Open Space and Common Area:See Sheet G.105 - Phasing Plan:See Sheet A.110 - General Plan Guidelines Community Vision 2040, and the Heart of the City Specific Plan - Zoning Reference Title 19 - (E) Land Use Designation: Commercial / Residential - (E) Zoning Designation: P(CG/RES) - Site Area, Gross:8.1 acres; 352,836 GSF - Site Area, Net:7.9 acres; 343,958 NSF (Gross Site Area - 8,878 SF for Public Roadway/Public Utilities easement) - Lot Coverage:40% (136,040 SF / 343,958 NSF) - F.A.R.:2.105 (724,000 GSF / 343,958 NSF) - Allowable Density (DUA): 30 DUA, up to a maximum of 200 units - Proposed Density (DUA):34 DUA, for a total of 270 Units (includes a 35% BMR state density bonus). Therefore, the proposed density is not a General Plan amendment. REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:39:29 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:39:29 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.102 PROJECT SUMMARY - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG CHIGHWAY 85RESIDENTIAL"FLATS" PARKING ACCESS (PASSAGE WAY BENEATH) POOL AMENITY DECK TRANSIT CENTER ART SCULPTURE AMENITY DECK PARKING ACCESS RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG E RESIDENTIAL BLDG D AT TRANSIT CENTER, REDUCE SETBACK ALONG WESTERN PROPERTY LINE TO 0 FEET PER REQUESTED HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN EXCEPTIONS 1 G.104 2 G.104 3 G.104 4 G.104TO E.D.CURB35' - 0"FIRE ACCESS GATE LOCATION EDGE OF CURB EDGE OF CURBSETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE(REVISED PERDEDICATIONS)SETBACKEXISTING PROPERTY LINE (W/O DEDICATIONS)11' - 11"16' - 6"10' - 6"10' - 8"EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE (REVISED PER DEDICATIONS) SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK PER ZONING55' - 2"F U T U R E T R A N S I T C E N T E R B R I D G E (B Y O T H E R S )COURTYARD3 7 ' - 6 "44' - 8"TO E.O. CURB35' - 0"54' - 3"41' - 6"49' - 6"REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:39:34 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:39:34 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.103 SITE PLAN SETBACKS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"G.103 1 SETBACK ZONING SITE PLAN PROPERTY LINE1:1 SlopeSTEVENS CREEK BLVD. PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B2 CURB LINE302' - 9" @ P.L LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" LEVEL 7 65'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 6 55'-0"SETBACK LINEPARKING GARAGE LEVEL B3 ROOF 77'-0"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"77' - 0"RESIDENTIAL BLDG D PROPERTY LINE1:1 SlopeSTEVENS CREEK BLVD.CURB LINELEVEL 2 25'-0" LEVEL 3 35'-0" LEVEL 4 45'-0" LEVEL 5 55'-0" ROOF 70'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"15' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0" 70' - 0"LEVEL 2 15'-0"SETBACK LINE301' - 0" @ P.L THEATER 4 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG E THEATER 5THEATER 3 PROPERTY LINE1:1 SlopeAPT-RETAIL BLDG B STEVENS CREEK BLVD.CURB LINESETBACK LINELEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 6"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"ROOF 55'-6"55' - 6"297' - 11" @ P.L PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B2 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B3 PROPERTY LINE1:1 SlopeAPT-RETAIL BLDG C STEVENS CREEK BLVD. PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B2 CURB LINELEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"295' - 0" @ P.LSETBACK LINEPARKING GARAGE LEVEL B3 ROOF 55'-0"15' - 0"55' - 0"REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:39:51 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:39:51 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.104 1-1 SLOPE SETBACKS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1/16" = 1'-0"G.104 1 RES BLDG D - SLOPE SETBACK - ALTERNATIVE 1 1/16" = 1'-0"G.104 2 RES -RETAIL BLDG E - SLOPE SETBACK - ALTERNATIVE 1 1/16" = 1'-0"G.104 3 RES-RETAIL BLDG B - SLOPE SETBACK - ALTERNATIVE 1 1/16" = 1'-0"G.104 4 RES-RETAIL BLDG C - SLOPE SETBACK - ALTERNATIVE 1 BUILDING OVERHANG ABOVE ARCADEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESTEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG CHIGHWAY 85APT-FLATS (PASSAGE WAY BENEATH) TRANSIT CENTER PROPOSED BIKE TRAIL OPEN SPACE AREA CALCS: R O O F T O P T E R R A C E 2 6 0 0 S F R O O F T O P T E R R A C E 1 1 5 0 S F ROOFTOP TERRACE 2160 SF RETAIL - COMMON OPEN SPACE 1,750 SF RESIDENTIAL - COMMON OPEN SPACE 42,350 SF RESIDENTIAL - COMMON LANDSCAPED GREEN SPACE 29,675 SF (SUBSECT OF COMMON OPEN SPACE) RETAIL : COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 1,740 SF (2.5% OF RETAIL 69,500 GSF) COMMON RETAIL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 1,750 SF RESIDENTIAL: COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 90,000 SF (150 SF/UNIT X 600 UNITS) COMMON HOUSING OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 42,350 SF COMMON LANDSCAPED SPACE (GREEN SPACE) REQUIRED = 70% or 29,645SF COMMON LANDSCAPED SPACE (GREEN SPACE) PROVIDED = 70% or 29,675 SF GENERAL NOTES REGARDING RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE: THE COMMON LANDSCAPE SPACE CALCS DO NOT INCLUDE THE STORMWATER RETENTION AREAS WHICH ARE ALSO LANDSCAPED, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE LANDSCAPED AREAS WITHIN THE SETBACK AREA, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE THE HARDSCAPED/PAVING AREAS. 60 SF PRIVATE OUTDOOR PATIO SPACE IS PROVIDED FOR EA RESIDENTIAL UNIT, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMON OPEN SPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL. PROJECT REQUESTS SPECIFIC EXCEPTION PLAN TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL COMMON OPEN SPACE SF/UNIT FROM 150 SF/UNIT TO 70 SF/UNIT. RESIDENTIAL - COMMON HARDSCAPED SPACE 12,675 SF (SUBSECT OF COMMON OPEN SPACE) OPEN SPACE LEGEND: LEVEL 2 AMENITY DECK 5,730 SF RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP TERRACE 750 SF RETAIL OPEN SPACE 500 SF RETAIL OPEN SPACE 1250 SF RESIDENTIAL GREEN ROOF 1850 SF RESIDENTIAL GREEN ROOF 1800 SF GREEN ROOF 4750 SF RESIDENTIAL GREEN ROOF 4700 SF RESIDENTIAL GREEN ROOF 2020 SF RESIDENTIAL COURTYARD5700 SFRESIDENTIAL GREEN SPACE 9000 SF OPEN GREEN SPACE (UNCALCULATED) REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:40:01 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:40:01 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.105 OPEN SPACE CALCS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"G.105 1 OPEN SPACE CALCS - ALTERNATIVE 1 UP COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD COMCOMCOMJT JT JT JT JT JT E COM COM COM COM COM COM COMSDSD12" WATER 8" SANITARY8" SANITARYSD SD SD8" SANITARY 6" WATER 12" WATER 12" WATER12" WATER12" STORM18" STORM36" STORMSDSDSDSDEEEEEEEEE E E EEEEEE E E E E E SDSDSDC O M COMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOM C O MCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOM COM COM COMCOMCOM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COMFIBERFIBEROVERHEADCOMCOMCOM COM COM C O M C O M C OMCOMCOMCOMCOMC OMC O M C O M C O M CO M COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM C O M C O M C O M COMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMJT JT JT JT JT JT J T J T J T J TJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTCOMCOM COM COM COM CO M COMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMJ T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JTJTJT8" SANITARY6" SANITARYSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSD S D SDSDSDSD SD SD SD SDSDSD SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS 5/3/2017 4:06:38 PM WESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 SHS 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP UP2 BR1 BR2 BR1 BR1 BR1 BR1 BR1 BR1 BR1 BR2 BR2 BR1 BRSTUDIOSTUDIOSTUDIOSTUDIOSTUDIO1 BR1 BR1 BRSTUDIOSTUDIOSTUDIOSTUDIOSTUDIO1 BR1 BRSTUDIOSTUDIO1 BR2 BR2 BR2 BRSTUDIOBUILDING OVERHANGAND ARCADESTEVENS CREEK BOULEVARDMARY AVETRASH &MEPHIGHWAY 85APT-FLATSPARKINGACCESSPARKINGACCESSTRANSIT CENTERAMENITYTHEATERLOBBYRESENTRYRESENTRYRES ENTRYRESIDENTIAL-RETAILBUILDING ARESIDENTIAL-RETAILBUILDING BRESIDENTIAL-RETAILBUILDING CAMENITYRAMPBIKESTORAGELEASINGPOOL EQUIPROOMRETAILLOADING/UNLOADINGTRASHLOBBYLOBBYLOBBYLOBBYTRASH &MEPAPARTMENT PARKING - 8 SPACESRAMPLOBBYLOBBYAMENITYCOMMUNITYSPACERESIDENTIAL-RETAILBLDG ERESIDENTIALBLDG DAMENITYFUTURE T.I RETAILFUTURE T.I RETAILRETAILRETAILFIRELANESHEET TITLE:SHEET NO.:PROJECT NO.:DRAWN:DATE:DATE:DESCRIPTION:PRELIM INARY ,NOT FORCONSTRUCTION MARK:REVISIONSWESTPORTCUPERTINO21267 STEVENS CREEKBLVD, CUPERTINO, CAKT Urban14148CSM / MCS15 MAY 2017GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"L.1011LANDSCAPE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 1Landscape ZonesAsphalt PavementScored Concrete PavementConcrete Unit PaversConcrete Sidewalk PavementKEYExisting Trees (21)Proposed Trees (295)Hardscape area: 135,336 Sq FtLandscape area: 69,362 Sq Ft UP1234567bcdASHASHASHOAKASHOAKOAKPINEASHASHASHASHASHASH (5)GUMGUMOAKSHEET TITLE:SHEET NO.:PROJECT NO.:DRAWN:DATE:DATE:DESCRIPTION:PRELIM INARY ,NOT FORCONSTRUCTION MARK:REVISIONSWESTPORTCUPERTINO21267 STEVENS CREEKBLVD, CUPERTINO, CAKT Urban14148CSM / MCS15 MAY 2017GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"L.1021PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 1 UP SEE PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET G.102 FOR ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND GROSS SITE AREA AND NET SITE AREA. 1. GENERAL NOTES - SITE PLAN SEE OPEN SPACE CALCS SHEET G.105 FOR OPEN SPACE CALCS.3. SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS AND INFO. 4. SEE SHEET A.103 FOR PROJECT PARKING SPACE SUMMARY. 5. SEE SITE PLAN SETBACKS SHEET G.103 FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS.2. 3 A.104 2 A.104 1 A.104 BUILDING OVERHANG AND ARCADE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE TRASH & MEP HI GHWAY 85FLATS PARKING ACCESS PARKING ACCESS TRANSIT CENTER AMENITY THEATER LOBBY RES ENTRY RES ENTRY RES ENTRY RES ENTRY RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING C AMENITY RAMP BIKE STORAGE LEASING POOL EQUIP ROOM RETAIL LOADING/UNLOADING TRASH LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY PARKING LOBBY PARKING LOBBY TRASH & MEP APARTMENT PARKING - 8 SPACES R A M P LOBBY LOBBY RES ENTRY AMENITY COMMUNITY SPACE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG ERESIDENTIAL BLDG D AMENITY 2 A.105 1 A.105 FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 2 BR STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR2 BR ART SETBACKSETBACK PER ZONINGSETBACKSETBACK SETBACK EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE (REVISED PER DEDICATIONS)EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE(REVISED PERDEDICATIONS)EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:37:21 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:37:21 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 SHS 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.101 LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"A.101 1 LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 1 UP 3 A.104 2 A.104 1 A.104 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG EHIGHWAY 85APT-FLATS POOL AMENITY DECK TRANSIT CENTER F U T U R E T R A N S I T C E N T E R B R I D G E (B Y O T H E R S ) RESIDENTIAL BLDG D RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING C 2 A.105 1 A.105 1 BRSTUDIO1 BR1 BR2 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR STUDIO STUDIO 2 BR 2 BR1 BR1 BR2 BR1 BR1 BR 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR1 BR2 BR STUDIOSTUDIO1 BR 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR1 BRSTUDIO1 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIOSTUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIOSTUDIO 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR STUDIO AMENITY 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR 2 BR 2 BRSTUDIO 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR2 BR 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO ART SEE PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET G.102 FOR ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND GROSS SITE AREA AND NET SITE AREA. 1. GENERAL NOTES - SITE PLAN SEE OPEN SPACE CALCS SHEET G.105 FOR OPEN SPACE CALCS.3. SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS AND INFO. 4. SEE SHEET A.103 FOR PROJECT PARKING SPACE SUMMARY. 5. SEE SITE PLAN SETBACKS SHEET G.103 FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS.2. REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:37:28 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:37:28 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.102 UPPER LEVEL BUILDING PLANS (TYP. PLAN) - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.102 1 UPPER LEVEL BUILDING PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 1 0'10'25'50'75'100' 3 A.104 2 A.104 R A M P U P RAMP DN GARAGE AREA "A":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:HOURS/ PEAK DEMAND: NOTES: RESIDENTIAL:650 SPACES 9.5'X20' 24/7 / EVENINGS LOCATED AT LEVELS B1, B2, AND LEVEL B3 BENEATH RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT CENTER:50 SPACES UNI-SIZE 50 SPACES AT LEVEL B1 GARAGE AREA "B":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:HOURS/ PEAK DEMAND:NOTES: RESIDENTIAL:510 SPACES 9.5'X20' 24/7 / EVENINGS LOCATED AT LEVELS B1, B2, AND LEVEL B3, W/ 10 SPACES @ BLDG A GROUND LVL PARKING GARAGE RETAIL:168 SPACES UNI-SIZE RETAIL HOURS LOCATED AT LEVEL B1 THEATER:102 SPACES UNI-SIZE RETAIL HOURS LOCATED AT LEVEL B1 AUTO PARKING MATRIX GARAGE AREA "A"GARAGE AREA "B" TOTAL:1,480 SPACES RETAIL BICYCLE STOR @ LVL B1, RESIDENTIAL BICYCLE STOR @ LVLS B2 & B3; 20 SPACES EACH LEVEL GARAGE AREA "A":PROVIDED PARKING:TYPE:NOTES: RESIDENTIAL:168 SPACES CLASS I LOCATED AT LEVELS B1, B2, AND B3 34 SPACES CLASS II TRANSIT CENTER:10 SPACES CLASS II LOCATED ADJACENT TO ELEVATORS AT LEVEL B1 BENEATH TRANSIT CENTER SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED ADJACENT TO GROUND LVL BLDG ENTRANCES GARAGE AREA "B":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:NOTES: RESIDENTIAL:135 SPACES CLASS I LOCATED AT LEVELS B1, B2, AND B3 27 SPACES CLASS II RETAIL:14 SPACES CLASS II LOCATED AT LEVEL B1 BICYCLE PARKING MATRIX ADDITIONAL:24 SPACES CLASS I 24 ADDITIONAL SPACES PROVIDED AT GROUND LVL "BIKE HUB" @ HOTEL TOTAL:412 SPACES PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL PROPERTY LINE UNI-SIZE SPACE FOR RETAIL, TYP 9.5'X20' SPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL, TYP 1 A.104 RAMP UPRAMP D N RETAIL BICYCLE STOR @ LVL B1, RESIDENTIAL BICYCLE STOR @ LVLS B2 & B3; 60 SPACES EACH LEVEL STOR UP RR RR CONCESS- IONS TECH/ STOR TECHTHEATER NOTE:SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ADJACENT TO GROUND LEVEL BLDG ENTRANCES RESIDENTIAL BICYCLE STORAGE RESIDENTIAL BICYCLE STORAGE REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 3:23:04 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 3:23:04 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.103 PARKING GARAGE BUILDING PLANS (TYP. PLAN) - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.103 1 PARKING GARAGE BUILDING PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 1 0'10'25'50'75'100' MARY AVE.EL 294.5'EL 297.0'EL 299.0'24' - 0" +/-STATE ROUTE 85 301' @ CURB 290.4 @ CURB LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" ROOF 55'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"57' - 9"LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" ROOF 55'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"57' - 0"RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG C RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG E RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG D LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" LEVEL 6 55'-0" ROOF 70'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 15'-0"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"67' - 0"LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" LEVEL 6 55'-0" ROOF 70'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 15'-0"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"77' - 0"LEVEL 6 55'-0" 2 A.104 3 A.104 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B3 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B3 SENIOR CENTER MARY AVE. EL 296.0'EL 295.5' AMENITY DECK 24' - 0" +/-GLENBROOK APARTMENTS 1 A.104 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B3 LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" ROOF 55'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" ROOF 55'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 293.1' @ CURB 298.2' @ CURB LEVEL 3 27'-0" LEVEL 4 39'-0" LEVEL 5 51'-0" LEVEL 6 63'-0" ROOF 88'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 7 75'-0" LEVEL 2 15'-0"12' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"STEVENS CREEK BLVDMARY AVE 303.6' @ CURB EL 299.0' 301.2' @ CURB PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B3 1 A.104 RESIDENTIAL BLDG D REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 3:23:19 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 3:23:19 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.104 SITE SECTIONS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.104 1 WEST/ EAST SITE SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 1 1" = 30'-0"A.104 2 NORTH/ SOUTH SITE SECTION @ RES-RETAIL - ALTERNATIVE 1 1" = 30'-0"A.104 3 NORTH/ SOUTH SITE SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 1 REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:37:37 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:37:37 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.105 STREET ELEVATIONS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPSTEVENS CREEK BLVD. STREET ELEVATION - ALTERNATIVE 1 1" = 40'-0"A.105 1 MARY AVE. STREET ELEVATION - ALTERNATIVE 1 1" = 40'-0"A.105 2 RESIDENTIAL D RESIDENTIAL E RESIDENTIAL / RETAIL A RESIDENTIAL / RETAIL C RESIDENTIAL DRESIDENTIAL ERESIDENTIAL / RETAIL ARESIDENTIAL / RETAIL C REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:37:54 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:37:54 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.106 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPHOUSING PRECEDENTS PEDESTRIAN PLAZA PRECEDENTS PUBLIC ART PRECEDENTS TRANSIT CENTER PRECEDENTS BUILDING OVERHANG AND ARCADE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE APT-FLATS PARKING ACCESS RES ENTRY RES ENTRY RES ENTRY RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDING C AMENITY RAMP BIKE STORAGE LEASING POOL EQUIP ROOM RETAIL LOADING/UNLOADING TRASH LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY PARKING LOBBY PARKING LOBBY APARTMENT PARKING - 8 SPACES RETAIL RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL ART REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:38:07 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:38:07 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.107 RESIDENTIAL / RETAIL A, B & C - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPRESIDENTIAL-RETAIL-STEVENS CREEK BLVD. - ALTERNATIVE 1 NO SCALE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL ELEVATION-MARY AVE. - ALTERNATIVE 1 NO SCALE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL ELEVATION-STEVENS CREEK BLVD. - ALTERNATIVE 1 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL SITE SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 1 A.107 5 3A.1074 A.107 NO SCALE A.107 2 NO SCALE A.107 3 A.107 4 A.107 5 1" = 40'-0"A.107 1 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL ENLARGED PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 1 RETAIL BLVD. PRECEDENTS TRASH & MEP PARKING ACCESS PARKING ACCESS AMENITY THEATER LOBBY RES ENTRY TRASH & MEP R A M P LOBBY LOBBY RES ENTRY AMENITY COMMUNITY SPACE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG ERESIDENTIAL BLDG D AMENITY 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 2 BR STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR STUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 2 BR2 BR REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:38:20 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:38:20 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.108 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING D - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.108 1 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL LEVEL 1 PLAN D-E - ALTERNATIVE 1 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL D-E STEVENS CREEK BLVD. - ALTERNATIVE 1 NO SCALEA.108 4 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL D-E - MARY AVE. - ALTERNATIVE 1 NO SCALEA.108 3RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL D-E STEVENS CREEK BLVD. - ALTERNATIVE 1 NO SCALEA.108 2 RESIDENTIAL PRECEDENTS BIKERACKCLOSET CLOSET BATHROOM BEDROOM LIVING ROOM KITCHEN / DINING BEDROOM CLOSETBATHROOM BATHROOM BEDROOM LIVINGROOM KITCHEN DINING CLOSET LIVING ROOM KITCHEN / DINING CLOSET CLOSET BIKE RACK BATHROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM CLOSET BATHROOM KITCHEN / DINING LIVING ROOM REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:38:30 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:38:30 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.109 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1/4" = 1'-0"A.109 1 UNIT - STUDIO 500-600 SF 1/4" = 1'-0"A.109 2 UNIT - 1BR 800 SF 1/4" = 1'-0"A.109 3 UNIT - 2BR 1100 SF 1/4" = 1'-0"A.109 4 UNIT - 1BR FLAT 600 SF REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:54:40 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:54:40 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.110 PHASING PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 3:23:22 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 1_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 3:23:22 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.111 NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING HEIGHTS - ALTERNATIVE 1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPFLINT CENTER GARAGE: 58'-0" FLINT CENTER: 109'-0"DE ANZA STUDENT CENTER: 35'-0" 60'-0" 70'-0" 75'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" SENIOR CENTER: 24'-0" GLENBROOK APARTMENTS: 24'-0" REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:34:23 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:34:23 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.200 COVER SHEET ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPWESTPORT CUPERTINO WESTPORT CUPERTINO CUPERTINO, CA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION DRAWING INDEX OWNER KT URBAN 21710 STEVENS CREEK BLVD #200 CUPERTINO, CA 95104 P: 408.257.2100 CONTACT: MARK TERSINI ARCHITECT C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND, OR 97209 P: 503.244.2100 CONTACT: KEVIN SAUSER ksauser@c2karch.com CONTACT/APPLICANT: SAMUEL SANDERSON sams@c2karch.com CIVIL SANDIS 636 9TH STREET OAKLAND, CA 94607 P: 510.590.3402 CONTACT: AMY TAYLOR ataylor@sandis.net LANDSCAPE PLACE 735 NW 18TH AVE. PORTLAND, OR 97209 P: 503.334.1630 CONTACT: MIGUEL CAMACHO SERNA miguel.camacho.serna@place.la STEVENS CREEK BLVDSTATE ROUTE 85DE ANZA COLLEGE MEMORIAL PARK MARY AVE STERLING RDPROJECT TEAMVICINITY MAP SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME G.100 GENERAL COVER SHEET - ALT 1 A.101 ARCHITECTURAL LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - ALT 1 L.101 LANDSCAPE PLAN - ALT 1 LANDSCAPE G.101 G.102 G.103 G.104 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN - ALT 1 PROJECT SUMMARY - ALT 1 SITE PLAN SETBACKS - ALT 1 1:1 SLOPE SETBACKS - ALT 1 C.101 C.102 CIVIL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN - ALT 1 SITE & STORMWATER MGT. PLAN - ALT 1 G.105 OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS - ALT 1 A.102 UPPER LEVEL BUILDING PLANS - ALT 1 A.103 PARKING GARAGE PLAN - ALT 1 A.104 SITE SECTIONS - ALT 1 A.105 STREET ELEVATIONS - ALT 1 A.106 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALT 1 A.107 A.108 RESIDENTIAL - RETAIL BUILDINGS A,B,C - ALT 1 A.109 RESIDENTIAL - RETAIL BUILDING D,E - ALT 1 A.110 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS - ALT 1 PHASING PLAN - ALT 1 A.111 NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING HEIGHTS - ALT 1 C.001 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY - ALT 1 L.102 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN - ALT 1 SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME G.200 GENERAL COVER SHEET - ALT 2 A.201 ARCHITECTURAL LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - ALT 2 L.201 LANDSCAPE PLAN - ALT 2 LANDSCAPE G.201 G.202 G.203 G.204 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN - ALT 2 PROJECT SUMMARY - ALT 2 SITE PLAN SETBACKS - ALT 2 1:1 SLOPE SETBACKS - ALT 2 C.201 C.202 CIVIL GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN - ALT 2 SITE & STORMWATER MGT. PLAN - ALT 2 G.205 OPEN SPACE AREA CALCULATIONS - ALT 2 A.202 UPPER LEVEL BUILDING PLANS - ALT 2 A.203 PARKING GARAGE PLAN - ALT 2 A.204 SITE SECTIONS - ALT 2 A.205 STREET ELEVATIONS - ALT 2 A.206 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALT 2 A.208 A.209 RESIDENTIAL - RETAIL BUILDINGS A,B,C - ALT 2 A.211 HOTEL BUILDING - ALT 2 A.212 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS - ALT 2 PHASING PLAN - ALT 2 A.213 NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING HEIGHTS - ALT 2 C.002 TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY - ALT 2 L.202 PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN - ALT 2 A.207 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALT 2 A.210 OFFICE BUILDING - ALT 2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MIXED-USE GATEWAY REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:34:33 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:34:33 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.201 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP ZONING CODE DATA: - General Plan Guidelines Community Vision 2040, and the Heart of the City Specific Plan - Zoning Reference Title 19 - (E) Land Use Designation: Commercial / Residential - (E) Zoning Designation: P(CG/RES) - Site Area, Gross:8.1 acres; 352,836 GSF - Site Area, Net:7.9 acres; 343,958 NSF (Gross Site Area - 8,878 SF for Public Roadway/Public Utilities easement) - Lot Coverage:42% (145,065 SF / 343,958 NSF) - F.A.R.:2.157 (742,000 GSF / 343,958 NSF) - Allowable Density (DUA): 30 DUA, up to a maximum of 200 units - Proposed Density (DUA):34 DUA, for a total of 270 Units (includes a 35% BMR state density bonus). Therefore, the proposed density is not a General Plan amendment. 1. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: 5. AUTO PARKING: 2. HEIGHT: 3. MINIMUM YARDS BUILDING SETBACKS : - Stevens Creek Blvd (South side): 35'-0" from edge of curb - Mary Ave (East side):9'-0" from property line - Mary Ave (North Side):9'-0" from property line - Highway 85 (West Side):44'-0" from property line (eq. to 1/2 ht. of bldg) - See General Plan Amendments request below. See Architectural Site Plan sheet G.203 for Building Setbacks dimensions. - Zoning Max Allowable Height: 45'-0" Max - Actual Project Max Height: 88'-0" to top of roof of Office Building - See Amendments request below. See Building Code Data for heights of each proposed building. 4. OPEN SPACE: - See Open Space Area Calcs Site Plan sheet G.205. No "Recreation Area" has been designated within this project. 6. BICYCLE PARKING: - Required Bicycle Parking for Each Building Use, per Parking Table 19.124.040(A): Office (1/ 1,250 SF): 224 Spaces (Class I) Hotel (1/ 20,000 SF): 6 Spaces (Class II) Residential (1/ 2 units): 135 Spaces (Class I) Residential (1/ 10 units): 27 Spaces (Class II) Retail (1/ 5,000 SF): 14 Spaces (Class II) Transit:10 Spaces (Class II) Total Required Spaces: 416 Spaces - Provided Parking for Each Building Use: Office:224 Spaces (Class I) Hotel:6 Spaces (Class II) Residential:135 Spaces (Class I) Residential:27 Spaces (Class II) Retail:14 Spaces (Class II) Transit:10 Spaces (Class I) Total Provided Spaces: 416 Spaces - See architectural sheet A.203 for bicycle parking locations. BUILDING CODE DATA: 2016 California Building Standards Codes & Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.04 - 2016 California Building Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Electrical Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Mechanical Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Plumbing Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Energy Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Fire Code, w/ local amendments - 2016 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, w/ local amendments Accessibility - Fair Housing Safe Harbor: 2003 ICC/ANSI A117.1 - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design 1. LOCAL CODES : 2. BUILDING USE AND OCCUPANCY : Occupancy Groups (Separated & Non-Separated) - Office Building: Office Group B Conference Group A-3, Non-separated Cafeteria Group A-2, Non-separated - Hotel Building: Hotel Units ("keys") Group R-1, Separated Fitness Center Group A-3, Non-separated Cafe/Restaurant Group A-2, Non-separated Conference Room Group A-3, Separated Theater Group A-1, Separated - Residential-Retail Buildings: Residential Units: Group R-2, Separated Lobby/Office:Group A-3, Non-separated Fit Center: Group A-3, Non-separated Retail:Groups A-2 and M, Separated - Transit Center:Group A-3, Separated BUILDING CODE DATA (CONT.):PROJECT SUMMARY: - Street Address: 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014 - Parcel 1 (APN:326-27-039) and Parcel 2 (APN: 326-27-040 & 041) per Map 838, pg 24-25 1. STREET ADDRESS AND APN FOR SITE: - Redevelopment of 71,254 SF Shopping Center (53,701 SF Retail, 17,503 SF Office) on 8.1 acres site, to provide mixed-use urban village with the following structures: - Office Building: 7-Stories; 280,000 SF. Potential "Incubator Office Space" at Level 1. - Hotel Building: 6-Stories; 116,850 SF; 170 hotel units ("keys"); w/ 4,000 SF Conference Facility / Community Space. - Residential-Retail Building A: 5-stories; 127,820 SF residenitial; 115 units; w/ 13,875 SF of ground-level retail. 12,135 SF garage w/ 10 grade-level parking spaces. - Residential-Retail Building B: 5-stories; 89,815 SF residential; 85 units; w/ 15,700 SF of ground-level retail. - Residential-Retail Building C: 5-stories; 58,060 SF residential; 70 units; w/ 12,425 SF of ground-level retail. - Theater at Hotel: 27,500 SF; 5 theaters. - Transit Center: 1000 SF of covered vertical circulation to pedestrian bridge to center of Highway 85, and vehicualr roundabout for unloading zone and local bus stop. Designated parking spaces in garage below. - Below-Grade Parking Garage: 3-stories; 720,000 SF; 1,470 parking spaces, w/ 416 bicycle spaces 2. PROJECT PROGRAM SUMMARY: - Required Parking for Each Building Use, per Parking Table 19.124.040(A) for Office, Hotel, and Retail, and Residential: Office (280,000 SF):982 Spaces (Uni-size) Hotel (170 units):190 Spaces (Uni-size) Hotel Conf Rm/Amenities: 39 Spaces (Uni-size) Retail (42,000 SF):168 Spaces (Uni-size) Theater:102 Spaces (Uni-size) Residential (270 units):540 Spaces (9'-6"x20') Total Required Spaces: 2,021 Spaces - Required Parking for Residential, per Density Bonus Ordinance Table 19.56.040B: (1) Space per Studio & 1-Bedroom Units, for 229 Units (2) Spaces per 2-Bedroom Units, for 41 Units Residential (270 units):311 Spaces (9'-6"x20') Revised Total Required Spaces: 1,792 Spaces - Provided Parking for Each Building Use: Office:485 Spaces (Uni-size) Hotel:215 Spaces (Uni-size) Retail:168 Spaces (Uni-size) Theater:102 Spaces (Uni-size) Transit Center:50 Spaces (Uni-size) Residential:460 Spaces (9'-6"x20') Add'l Grade-Level Spaces:23 Spaces (Uni-size) Total Provided Spaces: 1,503 Spaces - Provided Parking meets the reduced parking demand of 1,140 spaces for the buildings per SANDIS' Parking Assessment Letter; see Parking Garage sheet A.203 for Parking Matrix and parking layout. 3. BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS : Story, Height, and Area Limitations: - Office Building - Construction Type IA: Allowable Stories: Unlimited Stories allowed per Table 504.4 Actual Stories:7 Stories, not a "high rise" building Maximum Building Height:Unlimited per Table 504.3 Actual Building Height: 88'-0" to top of roof (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: Unlimited per Table 506.2 Actual Building Area: 280,000 GSF - Hotel Building - Construction Type IIIA: Allowable Stories: 6 Stories allowed per Section 510.5 Actual Stories:6 Stories, not a "high rise" building Maximum Building Height:75'-0" per Section 510.5 Actual Building Height: 70'-0" to top of roof parapet (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: Upper levels subdivided per Section 510.5 Actual Building Area: 22,000 SF/Story, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide upper levels into areas no greater than 3,000 SF. - Residential-Retail Building A - Construction Type VA over IA: Allowable Stories: 4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 504.4 and Section 510.2 Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 504.3 Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: 24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per Table 506.2 and Section 506.2 Unlimited for Type IA Retail Actual Building Area: 33,740 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide residential floor levels; 13,875 GSF Retail - Residential-Retail Building B - Construction Type VA over IA: Allowable Stories: 4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 504.4 and Section 510.2 Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 504.3 Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: 24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per Table 506.2 and Section 506.2 Unlimited for Type IA Retail Actual Building Area: 23,400 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide residential floor levels; 15,700 GSF Retail - Residential-Retail Building C - Construction Type VA over IA: Allowable Stories: 4 Stories over 1 Story allowed per Table 504.4 and Section 510.2 Actual Stories:4 Stories Residential Building, over 1 Story Retail Maximum Building Height:60'-0" per Table 504.3 Actual Building Height: 60'-0" to top of highest roof parapet (N.I. stair and elevator overruns or fall protection) Allowable Building Area: 24,000+ SF/Story for Type VA Housing per Table 506.2 and Section 506.2 Unlimited for Type IA Retail Actual Building Area: 14,440 SF, w/ 2-Hr rated fire walls to subdivide residential floor levels; 12,425 GSF Retail - Below-Grade Parking Garage - Construction Type IA: Allowable Stories: Unlimited Stories allowed per Table 504.4 Actual Stories:3 Stories below grade Allowable Building Area: Unlimited per Table 506.2 Actual Building Area: 720,000 GSF - Transit Center - Construction Type VB, Occupancy A-1, Sprinklered NFPA 13 (S1) 3. GPA PRELIMINARY PLAN CONTENT REQUIREMENTS: - General Plan Land Use Designation:See Sheet G.202 - Zoning Designation:See Sheet G.202 - Scale and North Arrow:See drawings sheets - Vicinity Map:See Sheet G.000 - Site Area:See Sheet G.202 - Lot Line Dimensions:See Sheet C.001 - Proposed Program:See Sheet G.202 - Density:See Sheet G.202 - Unit Plans:See Sheet A.211 - Setbacks:See Sheets G.203 & G.204 - Site Plan, Existing:See Sheet C.001 - Site Plan, Proposed:See Sheet G.201 - Existing Buildings on Adjoining Properties: See Sheet A.213 - General Plan Amendment Requests & Heart of the City Specific Plan Exceptions: See Sheets G.202 thru G.205 - Preliminary Floor Plans:See Sheets A.201 thru A.203 - Preliminary Grading Plans, Existing:See Sheet C.001 - Preliminary Grading Plans, Proposed:See Sheet C.201 - Preliminary Elevations, Proposed:See Sheets A.205 thru A.210 - Preliminary Architectural Renderings:See Sheets A.205 thru A.210 - Proposed Materials and Colors:See Sheets A.205 thru A.210 - Preliminary Building Cross-Sections:See Sheet A.204 - Public Improvements:See Sheets C.201 and C.202 - Driveways/Parking:See Sheets A.201 and A.203 - Loading/Unloading Areas:See Sheets A.201 and A.203 - Parking (Required and Proposed):See Sheets G.202 and A.203 - Preliminary Landscape Plans:See Sheet L.201 - Open Space and Common Area:See Sheet G.205 - Phasing Plan:See Sheet A.212 RESIDENTIAL UNIT MATRIX: 4. OCCUPANT LOAD: - Office Building:2,800 Occupants (280,000 SF / 100 GSF per Occ) - Hotel Building:585 Occupants (116,850 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building A - Res: 640 Occupants (127,820 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building A - Retail: 232 Occupants (13,875 SF / 60 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building B - Res: 450 Occupants (89,815 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building B - Retail: 262 Occupants (15,710 / 60 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building C - Res: 290 Occupants (58,060 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) - Res-Retail Building C - Retail: 208 Occupants (12,425 SF / 60 GSF per Occ) - Theater:102 Occupants (27,500 SF / Occ per seating) - Below-Grade Parking Garage: 3,660 Occupants (732,135 SF / 200 GSF per Occ) 7. REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (REFER TO APPLICATION): a. Land Use Designation of Office / Office Allocation SF: Request to add the revise the land use designation on the project site from Commercial/Residential to Commercial/Office/Residential, and add an Office allocation of 280,000 SF to the project site. b. Increase in Hotel Allocation: Request to increase the hotel allocation of 170 rooms/"keys" to the project site. c. Increase in Building Height: Request to revise from 45'-0" to 88'-0" for tallest buildings on site. d. Variation of the Slope Setback: Request to revise the 1:1 slope setback along Stevens Creek Blvd from 1:1 to 3:1 at the proposed Office Building and 2:1 at the proposed Hotel Building. 8. REQUESTED HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN EXCEPTIONS (REFER TO APPLICATION): a. Side Interior Setback: Request to revise setback at the western property line along Highway 85, specifically at the Transit Center, from 1/2 the building height to 0'-0" setback, and specifically at the Office Building to 10'-0" setback. b. Residential Common Open Space: Request to revise the residential common open space from 150 SF/unit to 80 SF/unit. The landscape common open space will be 70% of the total. REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:35:18 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:35:18 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.202 PROJECT SUMMARY - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP UP STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE OFFICE BLDG HOTEL BLDG RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG C RESIDENTIAL-FLATS PARKING ACCESS (PASSAGE WAY BENEATH) POOL AMENITY DECK (ROOFTOP LOUNGE) PARKING ACCESS TRANSIT CENTER ART SCULPTURE LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK AMENITY DECK 1 G.204 2 G.204 3 G.204 4 G.204 AT TRANSIT CENTER, REDUCE SETBACK ALONG WESTERN PROPERTY LINE TO 0 FEET PER REQUESTED HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN EXCEPTIONS EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE (REVISED PER DEDICATIONS)EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE(REVISED PERDEDICATIONS)FIRE ACCESS GATE LOCATION EDGE OF CURBTO E.O. CURB35' - 0"PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE (W/O DEDICATIONS)TO E.D.CURB35' - 0"SETBACKSETBACK PER ZONINGSETBACKSETBACK 41' - 6"44' - 8"55' - 2"11' - 11"2"37' - 5"SETBACK F U T U R E T R A N S I T C E N T E R B R I D G E (B Y O T H E R S )HI GHWAY 851 0 ' - 0 " AT OFFICE BUILDING, REDUCE SETBACK ALONG WESTERN PROPERTY LINE TO 10'-0" FEET PER REQUESTED HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN EXCEPTIONS 4 4 ' - 0 "35' - 3"10' - 8"10' - 6"SEE PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET G.202 FOR ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND GROSS SITE AREA AND NET SITE AREA. 1. GENERAL NOTES - SITE PLAN SEE OPEN SPACE CALCS SHEET G.205 FOR OPEN SPACE CALCS.3. SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS AND INFO. 4. SEE SHEET A.203 FOR PROJECT PARKING SPACE SUMMARY. 5. SEE SITE PLAN SETBACKS SHEET G.203 FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS.2. REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:35:23 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:35:23 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.203 SITE PLAN SETBACKS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"G.203 1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - CODE - ALTERNATIVE 2 PROPERTY LINE1:1 SLOPEOFFICE BLDG STEVENS CREEK BLVD. PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B2 CURB LINE302' - 9" @ P.L LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 27'-0" LEVEL 4 39'-0" LEVEL 5 51'-0" ROOF 75'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"12' - 0"12' - 0"12' - 0"12' - 0"12' - 0"15' - 0"LEVEL 6 63'-0"SETBACK LINEPROPOSED SLOPE 3:1PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B3 75' - 0"PROPERTY LINE1:1 SLOPEHOTEL BLDG STEVENS CREEK BLVD.CURB LINELEVEL 2 25'-0" LEVEL 3 35'-0" LEVEL 4 45'-0" LEVEL 5 55'-0" ROOF 70'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"15' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"70' - 0"LEVEL 2 15'-0"SETBACK LINE301' - 1" @ P.L THEATER 4 PROPOSED SLOPE 2:1THEATER 5THEATER 3 PROPERTY LINE1:1 SLOPERESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B STEVENS CREEK BLVD. PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B2 CURB LINESETBACK LINELEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 6"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"ROOF 55'-6"55' - 6"297' - 11" @ P.L PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B3 PROPERTY LINE1:1 SLOPERESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG C STEVENS CREEK BLVD. PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE LEVEL B2 CURB LINELEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"295' - 0" @ P.LSETBACK LINEPARKING GARAGE LEVEL B3 55' - 0"ROOF 55'-0" REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/14/2017 3:02:14 PMC:\Users\sams.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_sams.rvt5/14/2017 3:02:14 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.204 1-1 SLOPE SETBACKS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1/16" = 1'-0"G.204 1 OFFICE BLDG - SLOPE SETBACK - ALTERNATIVE 2 1/16" = 1'-0"G.204 2 HOTEL BLDG - SLOPE SETBACK - ALTERNATIVE 2 1/16" = 1'-0"G.204 3 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B - SLOPE SETBACK - ALTERNATIVE 2 1/16" = 1'-0"G.204 4 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG C - SLOPE SETBACK - ALTERNATIVE 2 BUILDING OVERHANG ABOVE ARCADEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESTEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE OFFICE BLDG HOTEL BLDG RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG CHIGHWAY 85RESIDENTIAL-FLATS KIOSKS TRANSIT CENTER OFFICE - COMMON OPEN SPACE 7,000 SF RETAIL - COMMON OPEN SPACE 1,750 SF HOUSING - COMMON OPEN SPACE 21,600 SF HOUSING - COMMON LANDSCAPED GREEN SPACE 15,120 SF (SUBSECT OF COMMON OPEN SPACE) OFFICE : COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 7,000 SF (2.5% OF OFFICE 280,000 GSF) COMMON OFFICE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 7,000 SF RETAIL : COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 1,740 SF (2.5% OF RETAIL 69,500 GSF) COMMON RETAIL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 1,750 SF RESIDENTIAL: COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 40,500 SF (150 SF/UNIT X 270 UNITS) COMMON HOUSING OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = 21,600 SF COMMON LANDSCAPED SPACE (GREEN SPACE) REQUIRED = 70% or 15,120 SF COMMON LANDSCAPED SPACE (GREEN SPACE) PROVIDED = 70% or 15,120 SF GENERAL NOTES REGARDING RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE: THE COMMON LANDSCAPE SPACE CALCS DO NOT INCLUDE THE STORMWATER RETENTION AREAS WHICH ARE ALSO LANDSCAPED, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE LANDSCAPED AREAS WITHIN THE SETBACK AREA, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE THE HARDSCAPED/PAVING AREAS. 60 SF PRIVATE OUTDOOR PATIO SPACE IS PROVIDED FOR EA HOUSING UNIT, IN ADDITION TO THE COMMON OPEN SPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL. PROPOSED BIKE TRAIL PROJECT REQUESTS SPECIFIC PLAN EXCEPTION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL COMMON OPEN SPACE SF/UNIT FROM 150 SF/UNIT TO 80 SF/UNIT. OPEN SPACE AREA CALCS: HOUSING - COMMON HARDSCAPED SPACE 6,480 SF (SUBSECT OF COMMON OPEN SPACE) OFFICE ROOFTOP TERRACE 7000 SF LEVEL 2 AMENITY DECK 5,730 SF RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP TERRACE 750 SF OPEN SPACE LEGEND: RETAIL OPEN SPACE 500 SF RETAIL OPEN SPACE 1250 SF RESIDENTIAL GREEN ROOF 1850 SF RESIDENTIAL GREEN ROOF 1800 SF GREEN ROOF 4750 SF RESIDENTIAL GREEN ROOF 4700 SF RESIDENTIAL GREEN ROOF 2020 SF OPEN GREEN SPACE (UNCALCULATED) SETBACK SETBACKSETBACK SETBACK SETBACK PER ZONINGREPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:35:41 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:35:41 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP G.205 OPEN SPACE CALCS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"G.205 1 OPEN SPACE CALCS - ALTERNATIVE 2 COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD COMCOMCOMJT JT JT JT JT JT E COM COM COM COM COM COM COMSDSD12" WATER 8" SANITARY8" SANITARYSD SD SD8" SANITARY 12" WATER 12" WATER12" WATER12" STORM18" STORM36" STORMSDE SDSDSDOMCOMCOMCOMCOMC O MCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOM COM COM COMCOMCOM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COMFIBERFIBEROVERHEADCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMC O M C O M C O M CO M COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM COM C O M C O M C O M COMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMCOMJT JT JT JT JT JT J T J T J T J TJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJ T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T J T JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JTRY6" SANITARYSHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS 5/3/2017 4:06:38 PM WESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 SHS 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: P R E L IM IN A R Y ,N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS 5/3/2017 4:06:38 PM WESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 SHS 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP UPBUILDING OVERHANG @ LEVEL 3BUILDING OVERHANGAND ARCADEBUILDINGOVERHANG@ LEVEL 2STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARDMARY AVELOADING& TRASHSTATE ROUTE 85FLATSPARKINGACCESSCOMMUNITYSPACEPARKINGACCESSHOTELLOBBYLOBBY SEATINGCAFETHEATER &ROOFTOP LOUNGELOBBYINCUBATOROFFICERETAIL /CAFEOFFICERES. CENTRYRES. AENTRYRES. BENTRYFITNESSCENTERRESIDENTIAL-RETAIL ARESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BRESIDENTIAL-RETAIL CBOH/OFFICESINCUBATORLOBBYAMENITYRAMPBIKE HUBLEASINGPOOL EQUIPROOMRETAILLOADING/UNLOADINGTRASHRES.LOBBYRES.LOBBYRES.LOBBYLOBBYPARKINGLOBBYPARKINGLOBBYOFFICELOBBYKITCHENLOADING& TRASHMEPRESIDENTIAL PARKING - 10 SPACESARTARTOFFICE BLDGHOTEL BLDGTRANSIT CENTERFIRELANESHEET TITLE:SHEET NO.:PROJECT NO.:DRAWN:DATE:DATE:DESCRIPTION:PRELIM INARY ,NOT FORCONSTRUCTION MARK:REVISIONSWESTPORTCUPERTINO21267 STEVENS CREEKBLVD, CUPERTINO, CAKT Urban14148CSM / MCS15 MAY 2017GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"L.2011LANDSCAPE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 2Landscape ZonesAsphalt PavementScored Concrete PavementConcrete Unit PaversConcrete Sidewalk PavementKEYExisting Trees (21)Proposed Trees (273)Hardscape area: 141,530 Sq FtLandscape area: 57,282 Sq Ft UP1234567bcdSHEET TITLE:SHEET NO.:PROJECT NO.:DRAWN:DATE:DATE: DESCRIPTION:PRELIM INARY ,NOT FORCONSTRUCTION MARK:REVISIONSWESTPORTCUPERTINO21267 STEVENS CREEKBLVD, CUPERTINO, CAKT Urban14148CSM / MCS15 MAY 2017GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"L.2021PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 2 UP UP 3 A.204 2 A.204 1 A.204 BUILDING OVERHANG @ LEVEL 3 BUILDING OVERHANG AND ARCADE BUILDING OVERHANG @ LEVEL 2 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE LOADING & TRASH FLATSPARKING ACCESS COMMUNITY SPACE PARKING ACCESS HOTEL LOBBY LOBBY SEATING CAFE THEATER & ROOFTOP LOUNGE LOBBY INCUBATOR OFFICE RETAIL / CAFE OFFICE RES. C ENTRY RES. A ENTRY RES. B ENTRY FITNESS CENTER RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL C BOH/ OFFICES INCUBATOR LOBBY AMENITY RAMP BIKE HUB LEASING POOL EQUIP ROOM RETAIL LOADING/UNLOADING TRASH RES. LOBBY RES. LOBBY RES. LOBBY LOBBY PARKING LOBBY PARKING LOBBY OFFICE LOBBY KITCHEN LOADING & TRASH MEP RESIDENTIAL PARKING - 10 SPACES ART OFFICE BLDG HOTEL BLDG TRANSIT CENTER 2 A.205 1 A.205HIGHWAY 85FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL SETBACKSETBACK PER ZONINGSETBACKSETBACK SETBA CK EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE (REVISED PER DEDICATIONS)EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE(REVISED PERDEDICATIONS)EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL SEE PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET G.202 FOR ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND GROSS SITE AREA AND NET SITE AREA. 1. GENERAL NOTES - SITE PLAN SEE OPEN SPACE CALCS SHEET G.205 FOR OPEN SPACE CALCS.3. SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS AND INFO. 4. SEE SHEET A.203 FOR PROJECT PARKING SPACE SUMMARY. 5. SEE SITE PLAN SETBACKS SHEET G.203 FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS.2. REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:31:51 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:31:51 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 SHS 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.201 LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP0'10'25'50'75'100' 1" = 40'-0"A.201 1 LEVEL 1 BUILDING PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 2 UP UP 3 A.204 2 A.204 1 A.204 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE OFFICE BLDG HOTEL BLDG RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B RESIDENTIAL- RETAIL BLDG C FLATS POOL AMENITY DECK TRANSIT CENTER 1 BRSTUDIO1 BR1 BR2 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR STUDIO STUDIO 2 BR 2 BR1 BR1 BR2 BR1 BR1 BR 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR1 BR2 BR STUDIOSTUDIO1 BR 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR1 BRSTUDIO1 BR 2 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIO STUDIOSTUDIO STUDIO 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR 1 BR STUDIOSTUDIO RoomRoom MEP Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room 2 A.205 1 A.205 2 BR 2 BR 1 BR STUDIO AMENITY 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR STUDIO 1 BR 2 BR 2 BRSTUDIO Room Room Room Room LINEN Room Room HI GHWAY 85SETBACKSETBACK PER ZONINGSETBACKSETBACK SETBA CK EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE (REVISED PER DEDICATIONS)EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE(REVISED PERDEDICATIONS)EDGE OF CURBPROPERTY LINE F U T U R E T R A N S I T C E N T ER B R I D G E (B Y O T H E R S ) SEE PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET G.202 FOR ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, AND GROSS SITE AREA AND NET SITE AREA. 1. GENERAL NOTES - SITE PLAN SEE OPEN SPACE CALCS SHEET G.205 FOR OPEN SPACE CALCS.3. SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS AND INFO. 4. SEE SHEET A.203 FOR PROJECT PARKING SPACE SUMMARY. 5. SEE SITE PLAN SETBACKS SHEET G.203 FOR SETBACK DIMENSIONS.2. REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:31:59 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:31:59 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.202 UPPER LEVEL BUILDING PLANS (TYP. PLAN) - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.202 1 UPPER LEVEL BUILDING PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 2 0'10'25'50'75'100' R A M P U P RAMP DN HOTEL VALET PARKING - TANDEM PARKING, 15 SPACES PER LEVEL GARAGE AREA "A":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:HOURS/ PEAK DEMAND: NOTES: OFFICE :485 SPACES UNI-SIZE 24/7 / DAYTIME LOCATED AT LEVELS B1, B2, AND LEVEL B3 BENEATH OFFICE BLDG HOTEL :215 SPACES UNI-SIZE 24/7 / EVENINGS LOCATED AT LEVELS B1, B2, AND LEVEL B3, INCL TANDEM "VALET" SPACES TRANSIT CENTER:50 SPACES UNI-SIZE 50 SPACES AT LEVEL B1 GARAGE AREA "B":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:HOURS/ PEAK DEMAND:NOTES: APARTMENT HOUSING: 460 SPACES 9.5'X20' 24/7 / EVENINGS LOCATED AT LEVELS B1, B2, AND LEVEL B3, W/ 10 SPACES @ BLDG A GROUND LVL PARKING GARAGE RETAIL:168 SPACES UNI-SIZE RETAIL HOURS LOCATED AT LEVEL B1 THEATER:102 SPACES UNI-SIZE RETAIL HOURS LOCATED AT LEVEL B1 AUTO PARKING MATRIX GARAGE AREA "A"GARAGE AREA "B" TOTAL:1,480 SPACES GARAGE AREA "A":PROVIDED PARKING:TYPE:NOTES: OFFICE :224 SPACES CLASS I LOCATED WITHIN OFFICE BLDG HOTEL :6 SPACES CLASS II LOCATED ADJACENT TO ELEVATORS BENEATH HOTEL BLDG TRANSIT CENTER:10 SPACES CLASS I LOCATED ADJACENT TO ELEVATORS AT LEVEL B1 BENEATH TRANSIT CENTER GARAGE AREA "B":PROVIDED PARKING:SIZE:NOTES: RESIDENTIAL:135 SPACES CLASS I LOCATED AT LEVELS B2 AND B3 27 SPACES CLASS II LOCATED AT LEVELS B2 AND B3 RETAIL (INCL THEATER): 14 SPACES CLASS II LOCATED AT LEVEL B1 BICYCLE PARKING MATRIX ADDITIONAL:24 SPACES CLASS I 24 ADDITIONAL SPACES PROVIDED AT GROUND LVL "BIKE HUB" @ RES BLDG A TOTAL:440 SPACES PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL PROPERTY LINE EDGE OF CURB @ GRADE LEVEL PROPERTY LINE UNI-SIZE SPACE FOR OFFICE, TYP 9.5'X20' SPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL, TYP RAMP UPRAMP D N STOR UP RR RR CONCESS- IONS TECH/ STOR TECHTHEATER NOTE:23 ADDITIONAL SPACES PROVIDED AT GRADE LEVEL (SHORT-TERM PARKING), ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDINGSNOTE:SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ADJACENT TO GROUND LEVEL BLDG ENTRANCES TRANSIT CENTER BICYCLE STORAGE HOTEL BICYCLE STORAGE RESIDENTIAL & RETAIL BICYCLE STORAGE FENCE REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 3:24:42 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 3:24:42 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.203 PARKING GARAGE BUILDING PLANS (TYP. PLAN) - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.203 1 PARKING GARAGE BUILDING PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 2 0'10'25'50'75'100' 2 A.204 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A HOTEL BLDGOFFICE BLDG RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG C MARY AVE. STATE ROUTE 85 EL 294.5'EL 297.0'EL 299.0'24' - 0" +/-3 A.204 301' @ CURB 290.4 @ CURB LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 27'-0" LEVEL 4 39'-0" LEVEL 5 51'-0" LEVEL 6 63'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"15' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 15' - 0" LEVEL 7 75'-0" ROOF 90'-0" LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" ROOF 55'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"57' - 9"LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" ROOF 55'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"57' - 0"LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" LEVEL 6 55'-0" ROOF 70'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LEVEL 2 15'-0"15' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"70' - 0"90' - 0" SENIOR CENTER PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B3 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B3 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDG B MARY AVE.STEVENS CREEK BLVD.EL 296.0'EL 295.5' PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2 AMENITY DECK 24' - 0" +/-GLENBROOK APARTMENTS 1 A.204 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B3 293.1' @ CURB 298.2' @ CURB LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" ROOF 55'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"15' - 0"LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 25'-0" LEVEL 4 35'-0" LEVEL 5 45'-0" ROOF 55'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0"57' - 4"OFFICE BLDG STEVENS CREEK BLVDMARY AVE PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B1 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B2 303.6' @ CURB EL 299.0' 301.2' @ CURB 1 A.204 PARKING GARAGE - LEVEL B3 LEVEL 2 15'-0" LEVEL 3 27'-0" LEVEL 4 39'-0" LEVEL 5 51'-0" LEVEL 6 63'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" 1 5 ' - 0 "12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 15' - 0" LEVEL 7 75'-0" 9 0 ' - 0 " LEVEL 7 90'-0" REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 3:24:53 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 3:24:53 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.204 SITE SECTIONS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.204 1 EAST / WEST SITE SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 2 1" = 30'-0"A.204 2 NORTH / SOUTH SITE SECTION @ RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BLDGS - ALTERNATIVE 2 1" = 30'-0"A.204 3 NORTH / SOUTH SITE SECTION @ OFFICE BLDG - ALTERNATIVE 2 REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:32:19 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:32:19 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.205 STREET ELEVATIONS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPSTEVENS CREEK BLVD. STREET ELEVATION - ALTERNATIVE 2 1" = 40'-0"A.205 1 MARY AVE. STREET ELEVATION - ALTERNATIVE 2 1" = 40'-0"A.205 2 HOTELOFFICE RESIDENTIAL / RETAIL B RESIDENTIAL / RETAIL C OFFICEHOTELRESIDENTIAL / RETAIL ARESIDENTIAL / RETAIL C REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:32:35 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:32:35 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.206 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPOFFICE PRECEDENTS HOTEL PRECEDENTS HOUSING PRECEDENTS REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:32:48 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:32:48 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.207 TYPOLOGICAL PRECEDENTS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPPEDESTRIAN PLAZA PRECEDENTS PUBLIC ART PRECEDENTS TRANSIT CENTER PRECEDENTS CINEMA PRECEDENTS BUILDING OVERHANG AND ARCADE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD MARY AVE FLATSPARKING ACCESS RES. C ENTRY RES. A ENTRY RES. B ENTRY RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL A RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL B RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL C AMENITY RAMP BIKE HUB LEASING POOL EQUIP ROOM RETAIL LOADING/UNLOADING TRASH RES. LOBBY RES. LOBBY RES. LOBBY LOBBY PARKING LOBBY PARKING LOBBY RESIDENTIAL PARKING - 8 SPACES ART FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL FUTURE T.I RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:33:02 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:33:02 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.208 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL BUILDINGS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.208 1 RESIDENTIAL- RETAIL LEVEL 1 PLANS - ALTERNATIVE 2 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL - STEVENS CREEK BLVD. - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL ELEVATION MARY AVE. - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALE RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL ELEVATION - STEVENS CREEK BLVD. - ALTERNATIVE 2 RESIDENTIAL-RETAIL SITE SECTION - ALTERNATIVE 2 A.208 5 3A.2084 A.208 NO SCALE A.208 2 NO SCALE A.208 3 A.208 4 A.208 5 RETAIL BLVD. PRECEDENTS UP BUILDING OVERHANG @ LEVEL 3 BUILDING OVERHANG @ L3 LOADING & TRASH PARKING ACCESS COMMUNITY SPACE PARKING ACCESS HOTEL LOBBY HOTEL LOBBY SEATING CAFE THEATER & ROOFTOP LOUNGE LOBBY FITNESS CENTER BOH/ OFFICES KITCHEN REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:33:14 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:33:14 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.209 HOTEL BUILDING - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.209 1 HOTEL BLDG LEVEL 1 PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 2 HOTEL - STEVENS CREEK BLVD - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALE HOTEL - STEVENS CREEK BLVD - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALE A.209 2 5A.2093 A.209 HOTEL - MARY AVE. - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALEA.209 2 A.209 3 A.209 5HOTEL - INTERIOR STREET - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALEA.209 4 HOTEL PRECEDENTS UP HI GHWAY 85PARKING ACCESS TRANSIT CENTER INCUBATOR OFFICE RETAIL / CAFE OFFICE INCUBATOR LOBBY OFFICE LOBBY LOADING & TRASH MEP ART REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:33:26 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:33:26 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.210 OFFICE BUILDING - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1" = 40'-0"A.210 1 OFFICE BLDG LEVEL 1 PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 2 TRANSIT CENTER OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATION - STEVENS CREEK BLVD & SR-85 - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALE OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATION - MARY AVENUE - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALE OFFICE / TRANSIT CENTER - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALE OFFICE BUILDING - STEVENS CREEK BLVD & SR-85 - ALTERNATIVE 2 NO SCALEA.210 4 A.210 A.210 5 A . 2 1 03 2A.2102 A.210 3 A.210 4 A.210 5 OFFICE PRECEDENTS BIKERACKCLOSET CLOSET BATHROOM BEDROOM LIVING ROOM KITCHEN / DINING BEDROOM CLOSETBATHROOM BATHROOM BEDROOM LIVINGROOM KITCHEN DINING CLOSET LIVING ROOM KITCHEN / DINING CLOSET CLOSET BIKE RACK BATHROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM CLOSET BATHROOM KITCHEN / DINING LIVING ROOM REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:33:37 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:33:37 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.211 ENLARGED UNIT PLANS ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP 1/4" = 1'-0"A.211 3 UNIT - 2BR 1100 SF 1/4" = 1'-0"A.211 2 UNIT - 1BR 800 SF 1/4" = 1'-0"A.211 4 UNIT - 1BR FLAT 600SF 1/4" = 1'-0"A.211 1 UNIT - STUDIO 500-600 SF REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 2:33:44 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 2:33:44 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.212 PHASING PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP REPRODUCTION OF THIS DRAWING IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE INC. THIS DRAWING IS ONLY CONDITIONALLY ISSUED, AND NEITHER RECEIPT OR POSSESSION THEREOF CONFERS OR TRANSFERS ANY RIGHT TO, OR LICENSE TO, USE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS DRAWING OR ANY TECHNICAL INFORMATION SHOWN THEREON, NOR ANY RIGHT TO REPRODUCE THIS DRAWING OR PART THEREOF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF C2K ARCHITECTURE LLC. SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO.: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN: DATE: DATE: DESCRIPTION: PR EL IM IN A R Y ,N OT F OR C O N S T R U C T IO N MARK: REVISIONS ARCHITECTURE inc 1645 NW HOYT ST PORTLAND OREGON 97209 503 444 2200 5/12/2017 3:24:57 PMC:\Users\ethan.taing.C2KARCH\Documents\14148_Oaks-CENTRAL_ALT 2_Ethan.taing.rvt5/12/2017 3:24:57 PMWESTPORT CUPERTINO 21267 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA KT Urban 14148 Author 15 MAY 2017 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP A.213 NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDING HEIGHTS - ALTERNATIVE 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APP+88'-0" +75'-0" +60'-0" +60'-0" +60'-0" FLINT CENTER GARAGE: 58'-0" FLINT CENTER: 109'-0"DE ANZA STUDENT CENTER: 35'-0" SENIOR CENTER: 24'-0" GLENBROOK APARTMENTS: 24'-0" WESTPORT CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN AMENDME NT AUTHORIZATION MAY 15, 2017 May 15, 2017 David Brandt, City Manager Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torres Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Subject: Westport Cupertino – General Plan Amendment Authorization Dear City Manager Brandt and Assistant City Manager Shrivastava: My brother and I have owned and operated our real estate f irm (KT Urban) in Cupertino for over 28 years. In February 2015 , we had the good fortune to acquire an excellent property in Cupertino less than ½ mile from our office. We have had our eye on this property for many years in hopes of acquisition as we observed its gradual and expected decline with an eye toward the future and a signature project for the community. Given the proliferation and impact of online shopping and the corresponding shift in retail shopping behavior, the Oaks Shopping Center has become functionally obsolete, suffering from an outdated aesthetic appearance and suboptimal site configuration that has resulted in a lack of market interest and demand. We believe that the City and its residents can agree that in its present state, the Oaks is certainly not serving the best interests of the community. We hope you share our belief that it’s time for a transformation at the Oaks. Thinking toward the future, we have invested the better part of two years actively engaging with, listening to, and incorporating community, property owner, stakeholder, City staff and elected official input. And this is just the beginning. The Heart of the City Specific Plan envisions this site as becoming Cupertino’s western gateway. Our proposed new concept, “Westport Cupertino”, embraces this vision and draws upon the City’s desire to create a greater sense of place. KT Urban is pleased to submit our new General Plan Amendment Authorization application. This application includes two alternatives that demonstrate our flexibility in identifying the optimal mix of land use possibilities, site design features, community amenities, fiscal benefits, and general plan amendments. The alternatives provided demonstrate the creativity of good land planning. Land is a valuable resource. Project architectural design should focus on minimizing large surface parking lots and inefficient low rise structure predominant in the built environment. Today’s active retail, entertainment and social hubs provide an urban mixed-use village. We request approval of the Authorization by the City Council to allow us to work with your professional staff and to seek community engagement to create the best project. It is our intent to work with the Council and City Staff to explore and refine these alternatives, or variations thereof, and come up with a direction that is best suited to Cupertino. We expect that these alternatives will be fully and equally analyzed through the City’s independent CEQA (Environmental Impact Report) review process. As a Cupertino-based company with long-standing family and business relationships within the community, KT Urban is committed to working with you and the community-at-large to implement the Westport Cupertino project in a manner that provides inspiration and enhances our City’s outstanding quality of life. We respectfully request authorization to proceed with a General Plan Amendment application. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark Tersini, Principal KT Urban City of Cupertino’s Vision “Cupertino aspires to be a balanced community with quiet and attractive neighborhoods and a vibrant, mixed-use ‘Heart of the City.’” Westport Cupertino Westport Cupertino will serve as a vibrant mixed-use gateway district providing affordable and senior housing, extensive community benefits, significant mobility options, and a retail, entertainment, and civic destination for the greater Cupertino community. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 1 Proposed Alternatives With a rapidly changing, technology-driven retail market and an outdated, aging commercial center, the existing Oaks Shopping Center is at a crossroads. The questions is: What are the alternatives that should be further investigated for this important “gateway” site? To afford greater flexibility while also respecting the opinions and diversity of community interests, this General Plan Amendment Authorization application presents two development alternatives for Westport Cupertino: 1) Mixed- Use Residential and 2) Mixed-Use Gateway. Below is a brief description of each alternative with conceptual illustrations. These are followed by several tables that address consistency with the City’s General Plan, and consistency with the GPA Authorization evaluation criteria. Land Uses Common to Both Alternatives Both alternatives include several similar land uses. These include: Retail/Commercial – 69,500 sf. in total. This includes approximately 42,000 square feet constructed on the ground floor. Uses include retail, restaurants, and neighborhood services. It also includes a 27,500 sf. five-screen boutique movie theater. The retail space will be internally connected through a network of pedestrian and open spaces linking the office, hotel and residential uses. The goal is to create an experience-oriented destination for residential, shopping, dining, and entertainment in a “gateway” environment, as envisioned in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Community Center –This 4,000 sf. publicly-accessible community center will be available for civic and community functions such as De Anza Community College lectures and education activities, conferences, school events, community celebrations, and a variety of social gatherings (e.g. weddings, parties, club events, non-profit functions). Open Space-Both alternatives will also include generously landscaped common areas including plazas, outdoor seating (for restaurants and public use), and public art. Transit Center – Given the community’s concerns about traffic, we have worked with Council to include a transit center onsite. The transit center will provide the basis for a future connection for rapid transit along State Route 85, 50 onsite parking stalls, and a shuttle drop-off/pick-up area, thus removing commuter buses and improving pedestrian and bike safety along Mary Avenue. Underground Parking – All parking (1,480 spaces) will be located on three underground levels, thereby reserving the ground floor as a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly urban space. Offsite Mobility Improvements – Both alternatives will fund significant roadway and intersections improvements on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue, as well as improving pedestrian and bikeway access along Mary Avenue, providing a variety of city-wide bikeway improvements, contributing to the City’s Safe Routes to School, contributing to a future City-sponsored shuttle program, and other mobility initiatives. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 2 Affordable Housing -- To encourage the development of affordable and senior housing, both alternatives include a residential density bonus request to allow the onsite construction of affordable housing, particularly for seniors . Alternative 1 – Mixed-Use Residential In addition to the land uses described above, this alternative will help the City meet its Housing Element goals while also helping the City address the current jobs-housing imbalance. The alternative is similar in size and scope to the recently approved Hamptons Redevelopment project, which allowed for a density of 76 units/net acre and a maximum height of 75 feet. Residential Accordingly, this Mixed-Use Residential Alternative will include 605 residential units; 200 units from existing zoning, 248 in additional allocation, and 157 units (35% density bonus). The residential units will include both market rate and senior affordable housing. Under this alternative, we have maintained a 15% affordable housing commitment which provides greater affordability rates than what is required by the City’s BMR Housing Program. General Plan Amendments Requested Amendment Rationale Increase in building height  To create a “gateway” site consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan.  To provide density that supports below grade parking, transit center, movie theatre and open plazas. Increase in the residential unit allocation  To provide more affordable housing per the City’s BMR program. Conceptual Image of Transit Center WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 3 Figure 1: Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential Conceptual Illustration WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 4 Alternative 2 – Mixed-Use Gateway The Mixed-Use Gateway is envisioned as a vibrant mixed-use site deserving of its gateway location in the City of Cupertino. In addition to the land uses described above for both alternatives, this alternative includes office, hotel, and residential. Class A Office Today’s technology companies require work environments that allow them to compete globally. Most existing office inventory in Cupertino consists of Class B and C product that meets neither employers’ needs nor the growing demand for local companies to expand. The project’s new Class A, 280,000 sf., office building will allow the City to diversify its corporate base and attract a headquarters’ user in the western area of the City. The Community Vision 2040 General Plan establishes a city- wide office allocation of approximately 500,000 sf. for “major companies” pursuant to Chapter 3 Strategy LU-1.2.2. We propose to utilize 280,000 sf. from the “major companies” allocation for Class A office use on this project site. If the City decides to not allow us to utilize the “major companies” allocation, the project will require an allocation of 280,000 sf. of office space. Flagship Hotel A flagship 170-room hotel (integrated with the boutique movie theater and community center), will include a rooftop restaurant/lounge and modern amenities that will generate significant incremental tax revenue for the City. Residential The opportunity to provide housing near jobs will help reduce local trips and improve the jobs-housing imbalance in the City of Cupertino. For this alternative, the applicant is requesting a density bonus of 35% over the allowed 200 units for a total of 270 residential units, which will consist of market rate as well as affordable housing for seniors. As compared to our previous submittal, we have increased our affordable housing commitment to 20%, thereby providing greater affordability rates than what is required by the City’s BMR Housing Program. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 5 General Plan Amendments Requested Amendment Rationale General Plan land use designation of Office. An increase in office allocation of 280K sf.  To allow the City to diversify its corporate base and attract a headquarters’ user in the western area of the City; and increase office inventory for Cupertino based start- up companies. Increase in the hotel allocation of 170 rooms.  To provide a flagship hotel.  To provide increased direct and indirect fiscal benefits to the City. Increase in building height.  To create a “gateway” site consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan.  To provide density that supports below grade parking, transit center, movie theater and open plazas. Variation of the Slope Setback on Stevens Creek Boulevard  To accommodate building design requirements for the office and hotel buildings. Changes from Prior Submittal Following is a summary of changes from the previous Oaks GPA Authorization application (2016): ▪ Addition of an on-site transit center and associated improvement to accommodate access to a future transit facility on Highway 85. ▪ Addition of designated space for start-up firms or small office users within the office building. ▪ Expansion of the community center. ▪ Addition of a five-screen boutique movie theater with a café/lounge. ▪ Additional level of below grade parking. ▪ Greater number of affordable housing units, all constructed onsite. ▪ Hotel with rooftop restaurant and lounge. ▪ Major refinements to the architectural features and massing. ▪ Increased public and private open space and rooftop gardens. ▪ Addition of conforming slope setbacks on Stevens Creek Boulevard. ▪ Additional roadway improvements on Mary Avenue beyond project frontage. ▪ Increased voluntary community amenities with greater City flexibility. ▪ Redesign of senior residential building to include more rooftop garden open space, greater visibility to public art, and enhanced interior unit designs. ▪ Complete reconfiguration of interior retail boulevard to enhance outdoor dining and public art, add on-street parking, and improve walkability. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 6 Figure 2: Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Conceptual Illustration WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 7 Figure 3: Conceptual Retail Plan Legend Full Service Restaurant Quick Service Restaurant Retail Service WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 8 Table 1: Westport Cupertino Alternatives Overview Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Planning General Plan Designation Commercial/Residential Commercial/Office/Residential Zoning Designation Planned Zoning with General Commercial and Residential Uses Planned Zoning with General Commercial, Professional Office and Residential Uses Lot Coverage | Floor Area Ratio 40% | 2.105 42% | 2.157 Land Uses Office -- 280,000 sf. Retail (includes boutique movie theater) 69,500 sf. 69,500 sf. Community Center 4,000 sf. 4,000 sf. Hotel -- 170 rooms Housing Element Residential Allocation 200 units 200 units Additional Residential Allocation 248 units -- Subtotal 448 200 Affordable % (Very Low | Low) 15% (11% | 4%) 20% (11% | 9%) Senior Affordable 67 units 40 units Senior Unrestricted 3 units 30 units Market Rate 535 units 200 units Density Bonus (@ 35%) 157 units 70 units WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 9 Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Total Residential Units Requested 605 units 270 units Building Heights Office -- 88 feet Hotel -- 70 feet Residential 35 - 75 feet 35 - 60 feet Slope Line (Setback : Height) Stevens Creek Boulevard (Residential) 1 : 1 1 : 1 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Hotel) -- 2 : 1 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Office) -- 3 : 1 Mary Avenue N/A N/A Setbacks Front (South property line – Stevens Creek Boulevard) 35’-0” 35’-0” Side – Interior (West property line – along State Route 85) 0’-0” 0’-0” Side – Street Side (North property line – Mary Avenue) 9’-0” 9’-0” Parking 1 Office -- 982 Hotel -- 190 WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 10 Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Residential 1,210 540 Retail 168 168 Theater 102 102 Community Center 16 16 Transit Center 50 50 Short-term (residential/retail) 23 23 Total Vehicle Parking Provided 1,503 1,503 Separate Use 1,546 2,021 Shared Use 1,513 1,751 Variance from Shared Use (10) (248) Open Space Private - Residential 60 sf./unit (patio) 60 sf./unit (patio) Residential Common Space 42,350 sf. 21,600 sf. Residential Landscape @70% 29,675 sf. 15,120 sf. Residential Hardscape @30% 12,675 sf. 6,480 sf. Office -- 7,000 sf. Retail 1,750 sf. 1,750 sf. Notes: 1. Per City of Cupertino Municipal Code Table 19.124.040(A) WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 11 Table 2: Requested General Plan Amendments and Exceptions Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required Alternatives 1 Mixed-Use Residential Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway General Plan Amendments General Plan Designation Commercial/Residential No Change Commercial/Office/Residential Development Allocation Office -- -- 280,000 sf. Hotel -- -- 170 rooms Residential Total 200 units 448 units -- Building Heights Office 45 feet -- 88 feet Hotel 45 feet -- 70 feet Residential 45 feet 30-75 feet 30-60 feet Slope Setback Stevens Creek Boulevard 1 : 1 -- 3 : 1 Office 2 : 1 Hotel WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 12 Requirement/Standard Allowed/Required Alternatives 1 Mixed-Use Residential Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Exceptions Open Space (per Heart of the City Specific Plan) Residential common open space 150 sf./unit or 40,500 sf. total 70 sf./unit 80 sf./unit Setback (per Heart of the City) Side – Interior (West property line – along State Route 85) for Transit Center ½ height of building (20 feet) or 10 feet, whichever is greater 0’-0” 0’-0” Side – Interior (West property line – along State Route 85) for Office ½ height of building (44 feet) or 10 feet, whichever is greater -- 10’-0” Parking (per Zoning) Shared Use Per parking study Per parking study Per parking study WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 13 Consistency with City Plans and Policies Westport Cupertino is Consistent with the City’s General Plan Guiding Principles General Plan Guiding Principles How Westport Cupertino is Consistent Develop Cohesive Neighborhoods  Increases the quality of life for all Cupertino residents through significant voluntary community amenities for the City.  Responds to the surrounding neighborhood context through stepped-back building massing and pedestrian and mobility connectivity.  Responds to the surrounding site context by providing active retail and commercial space along Stevens Creek Boulevard and easy pedestrian access from Memorial Park, De Anza College, and the adjacent residential community. Improve Public Health | Safety  Funds Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard road improvements, adjacent safety enhancements, and the City’s Safe Routes to Schools program.  Meets and exceeds accepted sustainability standards and strategies by employing Smart Growth land use planning principles and adopting green building design and construction methodologies.  Incorporates a comprehensive TDM program that will help reduce traffic to combat greenhouse gases and global warming. Improve Connectivity  Includes an on-site Transit Center as well as on and off-site bike path enhancements that will improve connectivity and enhance mobility.  Increases pedestrian walkability and connectivity at grade level due to below-grade parking. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 14 General Plan Guiding Principles How Westport Cupertino is Consistent Enhance Mobility  Allows connection to future rapid transit along Highway 85 corridor through new transit center.  Facilitates last mile connection through shuttle bus service for office, hotel and residential uses Enhance a Balanced Community  Improves the balance between jobs and housing in Cupertino and promotes public transit through the construction of a new transit center. Support Vibrant | Mixed-Use Businesses  Create a vibrant mixed-use gateway entertainment district complete with a boutique movie theater, ground floor retail uses and conference facilities with potential partnerships opportunities for use by local schools, city departments, and community groups. Ensure Attractive Design  High-quality architectural design integrated into a richly landscaped public realm. Achieves LEED Silver certification. Support Education  Community amenities support the construction of permanent classroom facilities at Garden Gate Elementary and provide increased tax revenues for schools. Generates significant one-time and recurring revenue for the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District. Ensure Fiscal Self-Reliance  Enhances the City’s economic vitality and fiscal stability by strengthening the City’s tax base through the redevelopment of an obsolete commercial center. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 15 Westport Cupertino is Consistent the City’s General Plan Land Use and Housing Element Policies General Plan Land Use Policies How Westport Cupertino is Consistent  1.1: Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors.  The project site lies at the intersection of State Route 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, the western gateway to the City and one block west of the Rapid 523 Bus Stop at Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. 1.2.2: Reserve development allocations for major companies and corporate headquarters.  Structural shifts in the workplace are driving demand for innovative mixed-use environments and should be made available to leading technology companies like Apple and other corporate users. 1.3.1 and 5.2: Create viable retail space along the ground floor street frontage.  Significant ground floor retail will activate Stevens Creek Boulevard, creating a neighborhood retail and entertainment destination. Removes unsightly surface parking lot.  1.4.1 (2): Mixed-use residential projects should be designed on the “mixed-use village” concept.  Incorporates residential and retail uses and community benefits, integrated with adjacent neighborhoods. 2.1: Creates an opportunity to redevelop the property into a gateway.  Redevelops an aging and outdated retail space into a vibrant, community-focused gateway site. 2.2: Incorporate pedestrian-scaled parks, plazas, entries, outdoor dining, and public art.  Incorporates plazas, outdoor eating spaces, open space, and significant public art. 3.3.3: Transition building height and massing with existing development.  Building massing transitions from existing heights along Mary Avenue to project site. 3.3.5 and 3.3.6: Locate buildings closes to the street and promote high-quality architecture.  Buildings are located adjacent to the streets and incorporate a rich variety of high-quality materials and associated landscaping.  5.1: Retain and enhance local neighborhood shopping centers and improve pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhoods to improve access to goods and services.  Revitalizes an aging retail center and incorporates a mobility hub and a transit center. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 16 General Plan Land Use Policies How Westport Cupertino is Consistent 8.3.1: Encourages reinvestment and revitalization of sales-tax producing uses.  Redevelops an outdated retail center into a vibrant mixed-use development that will significantly increase City sales tax revenue. 8.3.2: Utilizes shared parking between office, residential and retail uses.  Constructs an underground parking structure that will make more efficient use of the land and provides shared parking between uses. 9.1.3: Encourages new businesses and retains existing businesses contributing to the City’s economic vitality.  Supports retention of the existing business including the boutique movie theater and restaurants.  9.2.1: Encourage office development to locate in areas where workers can walk or bike to services such as shopping and restaurants.  Constructs a significant number of improvements that will support pedestrian, bike, and transit mobility options for Cupertino residents. 11.1: Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new developments and community facilities.  Constructs numerous on-and off-site pedestrian and bikeway improvements, including a safer connection to Memorial Park and De Anza Community College. General Plan Housing Element Policies How Westport Cupertino is Consistent 1.2: Project a full range of densities for ownership and rental housing.  Accommodates both ownership and rental housing in different configurations. 1.3: Encourage mixed-use development near transportation facility and employment centers.  Features include a transit center, access to a future VTA Transit Station, and numerous off-site pedestrian and bikeway improvements. 2.3: Develop affordable housing and housing for persons of special needs.  Provides up to 20% Below Market Rate (or BMR) housing, including accommodation for seniors. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 17 Heart of the City Specific Plan General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU-1 The City of Cupertino clearly recognizes the significance of the gateway function of the project site WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 18 Consistency with GPA Amendment Authorization Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Consistency Statement Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility  High quality design, building finishes.  Bike and pedestrian friendly.  Compatible interface with surrounding uses. Fiscal impacts, including a diverse economic base  Up to $17 in City impact fees.  Up to $1.2M in annual City General Fund revenue.  Up to $2. 3M in school construction fees.  Up to $1.9M in annual school tax revenue. Provision of affordable housing  15-20% affordable housing built onsite at higher affordability rates than what is required by the City’s BMR program.  Significantly improves the City’s existing BMR rental inventory from 138 units to up to 205 units, a potential 49% increase. Environmental sustainability  Transit center and TDM Program.  Low impact development methods including impervious surfaces.  Native and drought tolerant plants.  High efficiency plumbing and heating/cooling systems.  Building materials with high-recycled content.  LEED Silver certification. General Plan amendment requests Alternative 1 – Mixed-Use Residential 1. An increase in building height. 2. An increase in the residential unit allocation. Alternative 2 – Mixed-use Gateway 1. A General Plan designation of Office. 2. Increase office allocation. 3. Increase in the hotel room allocation. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 19 Evaluation Criteria Consistency Statement 4. An increase in the building height. 5. Variation of the Slope Setback on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Proposed voluntary community amenities  Schools, public facilities and transportation including Safe Routes to Schools program  Total estimated value is $8.7 million. Staff time and resources  Applicant will pay costs to process project. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 20 Provision for Affordable Housing Both alternatives’ housing programs are responsive to all market segments including market rate housing, below market rate housing and senior housing; and will help the City meet its regional housing needs as mandated by State law. We recognize that one of the most difficult issues for the City is identifying land to build below market rate housing. In response to this constraint, we are proposing to build the below market rate units onsite, and will enter into a voluntary agreement with the City for the construction of the below market rate rental units as stipulated by the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation Program. Both alternatives will construct on-site affordable housing. In addition to paying mitigation fees for the non-residential components of the project, both alternatives will build below market rate units onsite. The Mixed-Use Residential alternative will exceed the City’s affordability requirements by building 15% of the units (67) at below market rate of which 11% (49 units) will be built at very low income levels and 4% (18 units) will be built at low income levels. The Mixed-Use Gateway alternative will exceed the City’s affordability requirements by building 20% of the units (40) at below market rate of which 11% or 22 units will be built at very low income levels and 9% or 18 units will be built at low income levels. Net Fiscal Impacts KT Urban retained Applied Development Economics to complete a fiscal impact analysis which examines the proposed project’s estimated net fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund budget and the City’s two school districts; the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The analysis also includes an estimation of the net fiscal impact of the current Oaks retail development in its current underutilized state. A complete copy of the report can be found in Appendix C: Westport Cupertino Summary Fiscal Impact Analysis. A summary of key findings is presented below. 1,320 321 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential Net Annual City Revenue (000s) WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 21 6,500 16,400 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential Parkland Dedication Contribution (000s) 7,700 758 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential Affordable Housing Contribution (000s) 1,320 2,320 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential School Construction Fees (000s) 1,850 1,900 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential School Annual Tax Revenue (000s) WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 22 WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 23 Transportation and Mobility Alternative 1: Mixed-Use Residential While a detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) was not prepared for Alternative 1, the number of additional trips forecast to be generated is less than that of Alternative 2, and therefore no additional impacts are expected. Should Alternative 1 be selected to proceed through the application process, a detailed TIA will be prepared. Alternative 2: Mixed-Use Gateway A TIA was prepared by SANDIS for Alternative 2 Mixed -Use Gateway. The TIA used the Santa Clara Valley Transit Agency (VTA) TIA Guidelines and the City of Cupertino 2014 General Plan EIR as a baseline. A total of six (6) intersections were evaluated for potential for impacts using the following scenario conditions: Existing, Existing + Project, Cumulative, Cumulative + Project. During the Existing + Project condition, Alternative 2 is forecast to increase the average delay at study intersections between 0.2 and 7.2 seconds. These increases would not result in the reduction of LOS for any study intersections. During the Cumulative + Project condition, Alternative 2 is forecast to increase the average delay at study intersections between 0.2 and 8.9 seconds. Because of these increases, the intersection level of service (LOS) at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue would increase from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. To mitigate this LOS increase, the addition of a second eastbound left turn lane was identified. This additional lane could be accommodated within the existing Stevens Creek Boulevard right-of-way. Summary KT Urban understands that the traffic analysis will be fully reviewed by the City as part of the environmental review process. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 24 Voluntary Community Amenities Consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan Amendment policy, KT Urban is proposing a number of voluntary public amenities as part of its application. These voluntary amenities reflect needs identified by the City and community, based on our extensive neighborhood and public outreach efforts. Our outreach efforts also included numerous meetings with the Cupertino Union School District, Fremont Union High School District, De Anza College, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, Walk Bike Cupertino, Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters, Mineta Transportation Institute, Cupertino Rotary, and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, among others. In total, we are proposing approximately $8.7 million in voluntary public amenities under both alternatives. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA AUTHORIZATION | 25 Table 3: Voluntary Community Amenities Description Beneficiary Alternative 1 Mixed-Use Residential Alternative 2 Mixed-Use Gateway School Resources Cash contribution for construction of permanent school facilities Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) $1.0 million $1.0 million Public Open Space Cash contribution to Public Open Space such as Memorial Park City of Cupertino $300,000 $300,000 Public Facilities Public Art (in excess of the required $100,000) City of Cupertino $250,000 $250,000 Transportation Road Improvements, safety enhancements and safe routes to schools along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue City of Cupertino $3.0 million $3.0 million Construction of Onsite Transit Center City of Cupertino $3.5 million $3.5 million Construction of Bike Trail along Western project boundary City of Cupertino $250,000 $250,000 Cash contribution for city-wide shuttle program City of Cupertino $400,000 $400,000 Total Estimated Value of Community Amenities $8.7 million $8.7 million WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA APPLICATION | A Westport Cupertino Appendices A. Alternative 1 Conceptual Project Plans (under separate cover) B. Alternative 2 Conceptual Project Plans (under separate cover) C. Westport Cupertino Alternatives Summary Fiscal Impact Analysis WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA APPLICATION | C-1 Appendix C: Westport Cupertino Alternatives Summary Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary KT Urban retained Applied Development Economics to complete a fiscal impact analy sis which examines the proposed project’s estimated net fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund budget. Specifically, the analysis reviews whether projected revenues from the project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., poli ce protection, parks and recreation, etc.) to the project’s residents and employees. The results estimate the annual fiscal impact assuming build out of all of the project’s land use components. The analysis also includes an estimation of the net fiscal impact of the Oaks retail project in its current underutilized state. See Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Proposed Westport Cupertino Project, May 2017, prepared by ADE. Additionally, the analysis reviews the annual fiscal impact to the two school districts serving the project and the City of Cupertino, focusing on a comparison between net property and parcel tax generation and the cost to educate the students. Finally, this analysis reviews the one-time impact fee payments to the City and school districts, specifically, for affordable housing and parks. The analysis is presented separately for the two project alternatives. Overall, the result of these analyses is summarized in Figure I, and in more detail in subsequent pages of this section of the application. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA APPLICATION | C-2 Figure 1: Fiscal Analysis At-a-Glance WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA APPLICATION | C-3 Alternative 1: Mixed Use Residential The total annual revenue from Alternative 1 to the City’s General Fund and to the school districts is estimated at $2.1 million. In addition, the Alternative would generate 2.3 million in development impact fees for the school districts. Fiscal Impact – City of Cupertino Provided in Figure 2, below, is a summary of the significant positive net fiscal impact the project will provide the City of Cupertino’s General Fund upon completion of Alternative 1. Figure 2: Mixed Use Residential Alternative Annual Fiscal Impact on City of Cupertino Source: City of Cupertino FY 2017/2018 Proposed Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc. Some key findings from the fiscal impact analyses are: ▪ At build out, annual revenues are estimated to exceed annual expenditures. The analysis estimates Alternative 1 will result in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $320,900 for the City’s General Fund at build out. ▪ As of 2015, the Oaks retail center generates a net fiscal surplus of $115,513 for the City’s General Fund. The Mixed Use Residential Alternative would improve this fiscal benefit by nearly three times. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA APPLICATION | C-4 Fiscal Impact – School Districts In addition to the positive impact to the City of Cupertino, the Westport Cupertino project will also provide significant annual positive net resources to the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The primary revenues generated by Alternative 1 to these school districts are ad valorem property taxes and parcel taxes. Some of the key findings are: ▪ Overall, Alternative 1 is estimated to generate approximately $1.7 million in additional property tax revenue to the school districts on an annual net basis. This figure relates to net new property taxes paid to the CUSD and FUHSD combined, above the current property tax payments of $113,000 to the two districts. ▪ Parcel taxes will generate approximately $210,540 to the school districts annually. While the current tax measure only requires parcel taxes be paid on single ownership parcels regardless of the number of dwelling units on them, the developer has offere d to extend this parcel tax to all residential units with the provision of a condominiu m map. ▪ Based on data provided by the school district, the residential alternative will generate less property tax and parcel taxes t han the cost to educate the students from the project. School officials estimate that their current annual cost per studen t (or base revenue needed) is approximately $8,600 per student, and the preferred target revenue per student is $12,700 for all services. The number of students estimated by the two districts for this site at build out is 365 K-12 students. The residential alternative will generate nearly $1,900,000 in property and parcel taxes at build out, or $5,200 per student. City/School District Impact Fees In addition to ongoing fiscal impact, the analysis reviewed the one -time impact of capital infrastructure fees paid by the project in development of all project components. These fees are paid both to the City of Cupertino and the two school districts based on current ordinances and state statutes. Graphically, a summary of this impact is provided on Figure 1 above, and key findings are as follows: ▪ For the City of Cupertino, the project will generate approximately $16 .4 million in Park Dedication Fees for the City. Overall, the project could generate $18.6 million in park dedication fees. However, given the project’s significant Affordable Housing Program commitment to on-site below market rate units and Senior Housing, and the project’s adjacency to the large Memorial Park, KT Urban is requesting a waiver of park dedication fees for the below market rate (BMR) and senior residential units. If approved, the net fees paid by the applicant will still result in a significant contribution toward the City’s future park land and improvement needs. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA APPLICATION | C-5 ▪ The nonresidential components of the proposed project will result in $758,520 in BMR impact fees paid to the City. This fee payment is for the retail, theater and community space uses in the Alternative. ▪ Alternative 1 will pay $2.32 million in school construction impact fees. This contribution, required per state formula for each land use type, represents a significant contribution to each school district for school facility needs. Alternative 2: Mixed Use Gateway The total annual revenue from Alternative 2 to the City’s General Fund and to the school districts is estimated at $3.4 million. In addition, Alternative 2 would generate 1.3 million in development impact fees for the school districts. Fiscal Impact – City of Cupertino Provided in Figure 3 is a summary of the significant positive net fiscal impact Alternative 2 will provide the City of Cupertino’s General Fund upon completion of the project. Figure 3: Mixed Use Gateway Alternative Annual Fiscal Impact on City of Cupertino Source: City of Cupertino FY 2017/2018 Proposed Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc. WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA APPLICATION | C-6 Some key findings from the fiscal impact analysis are: ▪ At build out, annual revenues are estimated to exceed annual expenditures. The analysis estimates Alternative 2 will result in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $1.3 million for the City’s General Fund at build out. ▪ Transient Occupancy Taxes comprise the largest General Fund revenue source, followed by Property Tax and Sales Tax. The Alternative’s transient occupancy taxes, sales tax, and property tax consist of a total of 81% of potential General Fund revenues at project build out. ▪ New office development at build out generates $150,301 of total net fiscal revenue; hotel development would generate a net 1,024,700. The office uses account for approximately 11% of total annual fiscal impact at build out, as the second largest revenue source after hotel development, which accounts for the majority of the tax revenue from the new development. Residential uses account for 3.4% of the total Alternative net impact and retail uses account for 7.6%. ▪ In its current state, the Oaks retail center generates a net fiscal surplus of $115,513 for the City’s General Fund. This amount equates to less than 10% of what Alternative 2 would produce. ▪ Employees currently at the Oaks are estimated at 143, whereas the Mixed-Use Gateway is estimated to generate approximately 1,247 employees. Fiscal Impact – School Districts In addition to the positive impact to the City of Cupertino, Alternative 2 will also provide significant annual positive net resources to the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The primary revenues generated by the project to these school districts are ad valorem property taxes and parcel taxes. Some of the key findings are: ▪ Overall, Alternative 2 is estimated to generate approximately $1.76 million in additional property tax revenue to the school districts on an annual net basis. This figure relates to net new property taxes paid to the CUSD and FUHSD combined, above the current property tax payments of $113,000 to the two districts. ▪ Parcel taxes will generate approximately $94,000 to the school districts annually. While the current tax measure only requires parcel taxes be paid on single ownership parcels regardless of the number of dwelling units on them, the developer has offered to extend this parcel tax to all residential units with the provision of a condominium map. ▪ Alternative 2 is estimated to generate approximately $518,400, on a net fiscal basis, in property taxes and parcel taxes above the base cost estimated to serve these students by the school districts. School officials estimate that their current annual cost per WESTPORT CUPERTINO GPA APPLICATION | C-7 student (or base revenue needed) is approximately $8,600 per student, and the preferred target revenue per student is $12,700 for all services. The number of students estimated by the two districts for this Alternative at build out is 156 K-12 students. This yields a target revenue total of $1,981,200 (cost of $1,341,600), whereas the Alternative will generate $1,860,000 in property and parcel taxes at build out. City/School District Impact Fees In addition to ongoing fiscal impact, the analysis reviewed the one -time impact of capital infrastructure fees paid by the project in development of all project components. These fees are paid both to the City of Cupertino and the two school districts based on current ordinances and state statutes. Key findings are as follows: ▪ For the City of Cupertino, the project will generate approximately $6.5 million in Park Dedication Fees for the City. Overall, the project could generate $7.7 million in park dedication fees. However, given the project’s significant Affordable Housing Program commitment to on-site below market rate units and Senior Housing, and the project’s adjacency to the large Memorial Park, KT Urban is requesting a waiver of park dedication fees for the below market rate (BMR) and senior residential units. If approved, the net fees paid by the applicant will still result in a significant contribution toward the City’s future park land and improvement needs. ▪ The nonresidential components of the proposed project will result in $7.7 million in BMR impact fees paid to the City. This fee payment for retail, office and hotel uses is a significant contribution to the affordable housing fund of the City to meet af fordable housing needs throughout the community. ▪ Alternative 2 will pay $1.32 million in school construction impact fees. This contribution, required per state formula for each land use type, represents a significant contribution to each school district for school facility needs. Fiscal Impact Analysis Westport Cupertino Development Prepared for: KT Urban, LLC Prepared by: Applied Development Economics, Inc. 1756 Lacassie Avenue, #100, Walnut Creek, CA 94596  925.934.8712 www.adeusa.com May 12, 2017 A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 1 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 6 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................. 7 FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS .......................................................................................... 12 ALTERNATIVE 1: RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE.............................................................................12 ALTERNATIVE 2: GATEWAY MIXED USE ..................................................................................18 APPENDIX: CITY BUDGET AND PER CAPITA COST/REVENUE FACTORS ............................ 25 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Alternative 1 Buildout Fiscal Impact Summary………………………………………………………………………….3 Figure 1: Alternative 2 Buildout Fiscal Impact Summary………………………………………………………………………….5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-0 Alternative 1 Land Use Summary at Buildout…………………………………………………………………………..2 Table 2-0 Alternative 2 Land Use Summary at Build Out…………………………………………………………………………2 Table 1-1 Alternative 1 Fiscal Impact Summary At Build Out ……………………………………………………………….12 Table 1-2 Alternative 1 Detailed Fiscal Impact at Build Out……………………………………………………………………13 Table 1-3 Alternative 1 Residential and Employee Population at Build Out………………………………………..…14 Table 1-4 Alternative 1 Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues …………………………………………………….…14 Table 1-5 Alternative 1 Assessed Value Estimates………………………………………………………………………………...15 Table 1-6 Alternative 1 Average Income and Annual Taxable Retail Expenditures for Residential Units…………………………………………………………………………….………………….16 Table 1-7 Alternative 1 Non-Residential Annual Sales Tax…………………………………………………………………….17 Table 2-1 Alternative 2 Fiscal Impact Summary At Build Out ……………………………………………………………….18 A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s Table 2-2 Alternative 2 Detailed Fiscal Impact at Build Out……………………………………………………………………19 Table 2-3 Alternative 2 Residential and Employee Population at Build Out…………………………………………..20 Table 2-4 Alternative 2 Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues………………………………………………………..20 Table 2-5 Alternative 2 Assessed Value Estimates…………………………………………………………………………………21 Table 2-6 Alternative 2 Average Income and Annual Taxable Retail Expenditures for Residential Units………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 Table 2-7 Alternative 2 Non-Residential Annual Sales Tax…………………………………………………………………….23 Table 2-8 Estimated Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues………………………………………………………….24 Table A-1 City of Cupertino Proposed Budget FY 2017-18……………………………………………………………………..25 Table A-2 Total Residential and Employee Population…………………………………………………………………………….26 Table A-3 Residential Unit Revenue Assumptions……………………………………………………………………………………27 Table A-4 Non-Residential Unit Revenue Assumptions……………………………………………………………………………28 Table A-5 Annual Residential and Non-Residential Unit Expenditure Assumptions……………………………….29 A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This fiscal impact analysis (“Analysis”) examines the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund budget. Specifically, the Analysis estimates whether projected revenues from the Project will adequately cover the costs of delivering citywide services (e.g., police protection and parks and recreation, etc.) to the Project’s residents and employees. The Analysis is based on the assumption that these services will be provided by the City. The results estimate the annual fiscal impact assuming build out of the Project. ADE has prepared this Analysis on behalf of the Property Owner without a dialogue with City staff regarding the City’s budget. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is located in the South Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is located in the northwest area of Santa Clara County, south of the City of Sunnyvale and west of the City of San Jose. The Project site is located south of the existing Interstate 280 near the intersection of I-85 and Stevens Creek Blvd. KT Urban is offering two alternative developments for the site. ALTERNATIVE 1: MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL Alternative 1 proposed 605 dwelling units with 42,000 sq. ft. of retail space, a theater and a community events space (Table 1-0). This Alternative would provide 67 Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, of which 47 would be Senior Units. An additional 20 market rate units would also be for seniors. Of the 67 BMR units, 49 would be for Very Low Income households and 18 for Low Income households. The Alternative also proposes approximately 1,470 two-level below grade parking spaces, and 10 surface parking spaces. ALTERNATIVE 2: MIXED USE GATEWAY Alternative 2 proposes 270 residential units of high-density/mixed-use multi-family apartment rental product types with ground floor retail of 42,000 SF (Table 2-0). The residential component includes 70 Senior Units, of which 40 would be BMR units. Of the BMR units, 22 would be for Very Low Income households and 18 would be for Low Income households. The Project’s nonresidential development also includes 280,000 SF of office, 116,000 SF of hotel, a 27,500 SF theater and 4,000 SF of community center space. The Alternative also proposes approximately 1,470 two-level below grade parking spaces, and 10 surface parking spaces. P a g e 2 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s TABLE 1-0 ALTERNATIVE 1 LAND USE SUMMARY AT BUILDOUT Buildout Land Use Dwelling Units Building Square Feet Residential Land Uses Units Sq. Ft. Multifamily Market Rate Residential Rental Apartments 538 582,654 Low Income BMR Units 49 53,067 Very Low Income BMR Units 18 19,494 Total Residential Land Uses 605 655,215 Nonresidential Land Uses Retail - 42,000 Theater/Community Center - 31,500 Total Residential and Nonresidential Uses 605 728,715 Parking Below Grade Parking 1,470 Surface Parking 10 Total Parking 1,480 732,135 Total Alternative 1 Land Uses - 1,460,850 Source: KT Urban, May 2017 TABLE 2-0 ALTERNATIVE 2 LAND USE SUMMARY AT BUILD OUT BUILD OUT LAND USE DWELLING UNITS BUILDING SQUARE FEET Multi-Family Market Rate Residential Rental Apartments 230 234,830 Low Income BMR Units 22 22,462 Very Low Income BMR Units 18 18,378 Total Residential Land Uses 270 275,670 Nonresidential Land Uses Office - 280,000 Retail (Ground floor) - 42,000 Hotel 116,850 Theater/Community Center 31,500 Total Nonresidential Land Uses 470,350 Total Residential and Nonresidential Uses 270 560,500 Parking Below Grade Parking 1,470 Surface Parking 10 A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 3 Total Parking 1,480 732,135 Total Alternative 2 Land Uses - 1,474,155 Source: KT Urban, May 2017 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ALTERNATIVE 1 ▪ At build out, annual revenues are estimated to exceed annual expenditures. The analysis estimates Alternative 1 will result in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $320,900 for the City’s General Fund at build out (Figure 1). ▪ In addition to the positive impact to the City of Cupertino, the Westport Cupertino project will also provide significant annual positive net resources to the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), primarily from ad valorem property taxes and parcel taxes. Figure 1: Alternative 1 Buildout Fiscal Impact Summary Source: City of Cupertino FY 2017/2018 Proposed Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc. ▪ Overall, Alternative 1 is estimated to generate approximately $1.7 million in additional property tax revenue to the school districts on an annual net basis. This figure relates to net P a g e 4 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s new property taxes paid to the CUSD and FUHSD combined, above the current property tax payments of $113,000 to the two districts. ▪ Parcel taxes will generate approximately $210,540 to the school districts annually. While the current tax measure only requires parcel taxes be paid on single ownership parcels regardless of the number of dwelling units on them, the developer has offered to extend this parcel tax to all residential units with the provision of a condominium map. ▪ Based on data provided by the school district, the residential alternative will generate less property tax and parcel taxes than the cost to educate the students from the project. School officials estimate that their current annual cost per student (or base revenue needed) is approximately $8,600 per student, and the preferred target revenue per student is $12,700 for all services. The number of students estimated by the two districts for this site at build out is 365 K-12 students. The residential alternative will generate nearly $1,900,000 in property and parcel taxes at build out, or $5,200 per student. In addition to ongoing fiscal impact, the analysis reviewed the one-time impact of capital infrastructure fees paid by the project in development of all project components. These fees are paid both to the City of Cupertino and the two school districts based on current ordinances and state statutes. ▪ For the City of Cupertino, the project will generate approximately $16.4 million in Park Dedication Fees for the City. Overall, the project could generate $18.6 million in park dedication fees. However, given the project’s significant Affordable Housing Program commitment to on-site below market rate units and Senior Housing, and the project’s adjacency to the large Memorial Park, KT Urban is requesting a waiver of park dedication fees for the below market rate (BMR) and senior residential units. If approved, the net fees paid by the applicant will still result in a significant contribution toward the City’s future park land and improvement needs. ▪ The nonresidential components of the proposed project will result in $758,520 in BMR impact fees paid to the City. This fee payment is for the retail, theater and community space uses in the Alternative. ▪ Alternative 1 will pay $2.32 million in school construction impact fees. This contribution, required per state formula for each land use type, represents a significant contribution to each school district for school facility needs. ALTERNATIVE 2 ▪ At build out, annual revenues are estimated to exceed annual expenditures. The analysis estimates Alternative 2 will result in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $1.3 million for the City’s General Fund at build out (Figure 2). A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 5 ▪ Transient Occupancy Taxes comprise the largest General Fund revenue source, followed by Property Tax and Sales Tax. The Alternative’s transient occupancy taxes, sales tax, and property tax consist of a total of 81% of potential General Fund revenues at project build out. ▪ New office development at build out generates $150,301 of total net fiscal revenue; hotel development would generate a net $1,024,700. The office uses account for approximately 11% of total annual fiscal impact at build out, as the second largest revenue source after hotel development, which accounts for the majority of the tax revenue from the new development. Residential uses account for 3.4% of the total Alternative net impact and retail uses account for 7.6%. ▪ In its current state, the Oaks retail center generates a net fiscal surplus of $115,513 for the City’s General Fund. This amount equates to less than 10% of what Alternative 2 would produce. ▪ Employees currently at the Oaks are estimated at 143, whereas the Mixed Use Gateway is estimated to generate approximately 1,247 employees. Figure 2: Mixed Use Gateway Alternative Annual Fiscal Impact on City of Cupertino Source: City of Cupertino FY 2017/2018 Proposed Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc. ▪ Alternative 2 will also provide significant annual positive net resources to the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). Overall, Alternative 2 is estimated to generate approximately $1.76 million in additional property tax revenue to the school districts on an annual net basis. This P a g e 6 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s figure relates to net new property taxes paid to the CUSD and FUHSD combined, above the current property tax payments of $113,000 to the two districts. ▪ Parcel taxes will generate approximately $94,000 to the school districts annually. While the current tax measure only requires parcel taxes be paid on single ownership parcels regardless of the number of dwelling units on them, the developer has offered to extend this parcel tax to all residential units with the provision of a condominium map. ▪ Alternative 2 is estimated to generate approximately $518,400, on a net fiscal basis, in property taxes and parcel taxes above the base cost estimated to serve these students by the school districts. School officials estimate that their current annual cost per student (or base revenue needed) is approximately $8,600 per student, and the preferred target revenue per student is $12,700 for all services. The number of students estimated by the two districts for this Alternative at build out is 156 K-12 students. This yields a target revenue total of $1,981,200 (cost of $1,341,600), whereas the Alternative will generate $1,860,000 in property and parcel taxes at build out. ▪ City/School District Impact Fees. In addition to ongoing fiscal impact, the analysis reviewed the one-time impact of capital infrastructure fees paid by the project in development of all project components. These fees are paid both to the City of Cupertino and the two school districts based on current ordinances and state statutes. ▪ For the City of Cupertino, the project will generate approximately $6.5 million in Park Dedication Fees for the City. Overall, the project could generate $7.7 million in park dedication fees. However, given the project’s significant Affordable Housing Program commitment to on-site below market rate units and Senior Housing, and the project’s adjacency to the large Memorial Park, KT Urban is requesting a waiver of park dedication fees for the below market rate (BMR) and senior residential units. If approved, the net fees paid by the applicant will still result in a significant contribution toward the City’s future park land and improvement needs. ▪ The nonresidential components of the proposed project will result in $7.7 million in BMR impact fees paid to the City. This fee payment for retail, office and hotel uses is a significant contribution to the affordable housing fund of the City to meet affordable housing needs throughout the community. ▪ Alternative 2 will pay $1.32 million in school construction impact fees. This contribution, required per state formula for each land use type, represents a significant contribution to each school district for school facility needs. ORGANIZATION OF THE ANALYSIS The following chapter discusses the methodology for the analysis, followed by a Chapter with the detailed fiscal tables for each alternative. The Appendix contains the base budgetary and demographic data for the City of Cupertino used in the analysis. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 7 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS This section details the underlying methodology and assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impact of the Project on the City. It describes assumptions concerning municipal service delivery, land development, and General Fund budgeting. In addition, it details the methodology used to forecast the Project’s General Fund revenues and expenditures at build out. The Analysis examines the Project’s ability to generate adequate revenues to cover the City’s costs of providing public services to the Project. The services analyzed in this Analysis include General Fund services (e.g., police, recreation and community services, and general government). The Analysis excludes any services that may be funded privately and services funded by user rates or other enterprise funds. In addition, this Analysis also does not include an evaluation of capital facilities, capital improvement costs, or funding of capital facilities needed to serve new development. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS The Analysis is based on the City of Cupertino’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2018 proposed operating budget, tax regulations, statutes, and other supplemental information from the City. Each revenue item is estimated based on current State legislation and current City practices. Future changes by either State legislation or County and City practices can affect the revenues and expenditures estimated in this Analysis. The City’s operating budget cost categories are shown in Appendix Table A-1. ADE adjusted the cost categories and allocated the cost by department, based on expenditure stated in each department costs. For the expenditure items, all onetime costs and salaries are adjusted, and all costs and revenues are shown in constant 2017 dollars. General fiscal and demographic assumptions are detailed in Appendix A-2. The Analysis also uses information from the Property Owner, as well as historical data and projected demographic data from the California Department of Finance (DOF), U.S. Census, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the City of Cupertino. This Analysis also uses other critical assumptions that affect the Project’s value at build out including: residential home values, average rent and unit square feet, densities, product types, persons-per- household, and vacancy rates in the City’s current real estate market. The results of this Analysis will vary if the development plans or other assumptions change from those included with this Analysis. GENERAL FUND REVENUE- AND EXPENDITURE-ESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS This Analysis considers only discretionary General Fund revenues that will be generated by the Project. Offsetting revenues, which are General Fund revenues dedicated to offset the costs of specific General Fund department functions, are excluded from this Analysis. Departmental costs that are funded by offsetting revenues that are not affected by development are also excluded from this Analysis. Appendix Tables A-3 and A-4 show the revenue-estimating factors on a per person served and case study bases and includes the offsetting revenues from the Analysis as shown in Appendix P a g e 8 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s Table A-1. Appendix Table A-4 shows the expenditure-estimating procedures on a per person served basis, and also includes the offsetting revenues. DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS The results of this Analysis are based on the following assumptions. Below is a brief summary of the land use and other development-related assumptions: ▪ Residential Population Estimates — Population projections are calculated using average persons-per-household factors. The Analysis uses a factor of 2.9 persons-per-household for the high-density multi-family units and 2.0 for the Senior Units. ▪ Employee Estimates — Employee estimates are calculated using average square feet-per- employee and vacancy rates based on existing real estate market data. The Analysis uses 300 SF per employee for General Office, 550 SF per employee for Ground floor Retail and Hotel, and 1,100 SF per employee for the Hotel community space. ▪ Residential and Nonresidential Assessed Value — The estimated assessed valuation per square foot of residential and nonresidential development is based on information provided by the Property Owner and comparable market data. See Westport State Density Bonus Justification document for pro forma analysis deriving the residential unit values. ▪ Persons-Served Methodology — In estimating service demands of the Project and the City, ADE uses a factor of 0.5 resident-equivalents per employee to approximate the service demands of an employee in the Project’s nonresidential land uses compared to a Project resident. The total Persons Served is calculated as the sum of the total population plus half of the total employees in the City. ▪ Income and Retail Expenditure of Households — The average household income of each residential land use category in the Project was estimated to forecast household retail expenditures. Estimated household incomes reflect typical income levels that would be expected for households to rent these homes under typical affordability guidelines. REVENUE-ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY ADE used either a case-study approach or a per person served approach to estimate property tax, sales tax and transient occupancy revenues. The case-study approach simulates actual revenue generation resulting from new development. The case-study approach for estimating sales and use tax revenues, for instance, forecasts market demand and taxable spending from the Project’s new residents, as well as taxable sales generated by the Project’s on-site retail. Case studies used in this Analysis are discussed in greater detail later in this section. The average-revenue approach uses the City’s FY 2017-2018 budgeted revenue amounts on a citywide per capita or per persons served basis to forecast revenues derived from estimated residents of the Project. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 9 PROPERTY TAX Estimated annual property tax revenue resulting from development in the Project is based on residential assessed values calculated from pro forma analysis of the anticipated rental rates and development costs as provided by the Property Owner. The non-residential assessed value are based on current market levels. To be consistent with the City’s budget data, the estimated assessed values for Project land use are presented in constant 2017-dollar values—real growth in assessed value is not estimated. The Project site is located in the following Tax Rate Areas (TRAs): ▪ APN 326-27-041 (TRA 001-178) – Assessed Value $3,088,471 ▪ APN 326-27-040 (TRA 001-178) – Assessed Value $3,636,656 ▪ APN 326-27-039 (TRA 001-178) – Assessed Value $17,459,21 The share of property taxes available for the City General Fund from the County is approximately 5.8 percent of the 1 percent Property Tax allocation, while the County receives 34.5 percent and 8.6 percent that is allocated to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In addition, the City receives Property Tax In Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (PTIL VLF), which are calculated from the increase in assessed value for the project. The analysis also calculates the property tax that goes to the Cupertino Unfired School District and the Fremont Unified High School District, which receive 24.8 and 16.7 percent of the base property tax, respectively. SALES TAX Sales tax revenues are based on taxable sales generated within the City, of which the City receives one percent. The Analysis uses two methodologies to estimate taxable sales generated by the Project: Retail Sales based on Project Households’ Retail Expenditures The Analysis estimates retail expenditures of future residents in the Project by type of retail category and the portion of expenditures that would be captured in the City (e.g., generate sales in the City’s retail establishments). The amounts and types of expenditures made by residents generally depend on their household income. Data for this Analysis is based on estimated Project resident incomes, household spending patterns, and retail demand and supply market conditions in the City. Specifically, the Analysis evaluates retail expenditures of future residents by the following: ▪ Estimating the total income of new households based on the projected rent levels provided by the Property Owner, assuming 30 percent of income goes to housing costs. Evaluating Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reports the proportion of income spent on various household goods and services by income group. ▪ Translating BLS data on household expenditures into retail stores. P a g e 10 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s According to the Property Owner, all of the residential units will be rental apartments at Project build out. The Analysis estimates the impact for the apartment rental scenario, and assumes the City’s estimated average asking rent for residential rental apartments is $4.15 per SF for Alternative 1 and $4.25 per SF for Alternative 2. The average unit size would be 850 SF for Alternative 1 and 780 SF for Alternative 2. Based on the average annual rental price, ADE estimated that future household incomes would average $141,000 for high density multi-family apartment units in Alternative 1 and $133,000 in Alternative 2. Incomes for the BMR units are set by City policy at $67,800 for Low Income units and $47,800 for Very Low Income units, under both Alternatives. This Analysis assumes that the City would capture 65 percent of the Project’s retail demand. Retail Sales Based on Project Employees’ Retail Expenditures Research indicates that spending by workers in the vicinity of their place of work is significant. Given the amount of Project employment expected at build out from office and hotel development, this Analysis estimated the additional demand for retail that would be created by Project employees. First, the analysis estimates the proportions of workers expected to be the Project’s residents versus non- residents. Spending attributable to employees who are Project residents is discounted. ADE assumes that such workers would still make a significant amount of their household spending in the Project regardless of their place of work. Spending by workers from the City who do not reside in the Project is also estimated, since such spending is assumed to occur in the City as a direct result of the workers’ employment at the Project. The Analysis conservatively assumes an average daily expenditure of $10 per workday per worker for 240 workdays annually, and that 50 percent of these sales occur in Cupertino. Retail Space Direct Sales In addition to retail sales in the City that will be generated by expenditures of Project households and employees, the Project proposes 42,000 SF of ground floor retail which will directly generate additional retail sales in the City. Retail stores typically generate $350 in taxable sales per sq. ft. In order to avoid double counting, the analysis nets out sales tax generated by the residential households and onsite employees from the onsite retail space. TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX This Analysis uses a case-study methodology to estimate transient-occupancy tax (TOT) revenue generated by the Project. TOT revenue is estimated based on the number of hotel rooms, at an annual occupancy rate of 65 percent, an average daily room rate of $200, and the City’s TOT rate of 12 percent. OTHER REVENUES AND COSTS The Analysis uses a per person served methodology to estimate other revenue as well as costs generated by the Project. The service population is estimated based on the number of residents, in addition to half of the employee population in the proposed project development. ADE estimated the per capita weighted average of 74.7 percent is generated in the residential uses, and the remaining in non-residential uses. Per capita revenue factors are shown in Appendix Tables A-3 and A-4. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 11 Expenditure estimates are based on the adjusted City’s FY 2017–18 proposed operating budget and supplemental information from the City’s public available information. All City General Fund expenditure items and expenditure-estimating procedures are listed n Appendix Table A-5. ADE followed the methodology outlined by Economic and Planning Systems for adjusting fixed City costs out of the per capita estimating factors.1 ADE uses a percentage factor of total net General Fund costs to calculate the percentage cost allocation for each land use. Appendix Table A-5 shows General Government cost is 2.88 percent of total General Fund Expenditure. The general fund expenditure allocation for each residential and nonresidential development uses this percentage to determine the total project build out revenue. 1 EPS, The Oaks Economic and Fiscal Review, January 21, 2016. P a g e 12 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS The detailed fiscal calculations for each Alternative are provided in this chapter. Both Alternatives generate a positive fiscal impact for Cupertino. Alternative 2 creates a higher net surplus revenue due mainly to the hotel development. ALTERNATIVE 1: RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE Alternative 1 generates annual City revenues of about $1 million and annual costs of about $691,500, creating an annual net revenue surplus of $320,900, as shown in Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1 ALTERNATIVE 1 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY AT BUILD OUT (2017$) Total Project Revenues at Build Out $1,012,358 Total Project Expenditures at Build Out $691,499 Net Impact $320,859 Source: City of Cupertino FY 2017/2018 Proposed Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc. Table 1-2 shows the detailed estimates of revenues and costs associated with the project and each individual land use. As noted in the methodology chapter, sales tax generated onsite in the retail space has been reduced by the amount of retail spending from residential uses and employees to avoid any possible double counting. The remaining tables detail the population and employment for the Alternative, the assessed value and property tax calculations and sales tax calculations. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 13 TABLE 1-2 ALTERNATIVE 1 DETAILED FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT (2017$) GENERAL FUND BUDGET CATEGORY % OF TOTAL ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RETAIL THEATER Annual Revenue Sales Tax 14.61% $147,916 $139,760 $7,856 $300 Property Tax 38.79% $392,742 $364,494 $23,436 $4,813 Transient Occupancy 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Tax 6.36% $64,347 $63,319 $775 $254 Franchise Fees 6.04% $61,130 $60,153 $736 $241 Other Taxes 5.66% $57,309 $56,393 $690 $226 Licenses & Permits 4.26% $43,133 $42,444 $519 $170 Use of Money and Property 3.27% $33,135 $32,605 $399 $131 Intergovernmental 0.96% $9,733 $9,577 $117 $38 Charges for Services 14.01% $141,863 $139,596 $1,708 $559 Fines & Forfeitures 1.19% $12,065 $11,872 $145 $48 Miscellaneous 0.87% $8,767 $8,626 $106 $35 Transfer-In 3.97% $40,217 $39,574 $484 $159 Total General Fund Revenue 100.00 % $1,012,358 $968,414 $36,972 $6,972 Annual Expenditure General Government 2.80% $19,387 $19,320 $51 $17 Police 25.93% $179,273 $178,370 $680 $223 Public Affairs 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation and Community Services 30.02% $207,580 $207,580 $0 $0 Planning and Community Development 11.24% $77,753 $77,362 $295 $97 Public Works 30.01% $207,506 $206,461 $787 $258 Non-Departmental and Transfers 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 Total General Fund Expenditure 100.00 % $691,499 $689,093 $1,813 $593 ANNUAL GF SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $320,859 $279,322 $35,159 $6,378 Source: ADE, Inc. P a g e 14 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s TABLE 1-3 ALTERNATIVE 1 RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE POPULATION AT BUILD OUT LAND USE PER UNIT/SQ. FT. BUILD OUT RESIDENTS EMPLOYEES PERSONS SERVED Residential Population Market Rate 2.9 1,560 - 1,560 Low Income BMR 2 98 98 Very Low Income BMR 2.0 36 36 Total Residential Population 1,694 1,694 Employee Population Sq. Ft./Employee Retail 500 - 76 38 Theater 27,500 - 25 23 Total Employee Population 101 51 Total Residential and Employee Population 1,694 101 1,745 Total Persons Served 1,745 Source: KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE, Inc., May 2017. TABLE 1-4 ALTERNATIVE 1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES (2017$) ITEM ASSUMPTION ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT Property Tax (1% of Assessed Value) Residential Build Out Assessed Value (2015$) Table 1-5 $391,928,334 Non-Residential Buildout Assessed Value (2017$) Table 1-5 $38,950,000 Total Assessed Value $430,878,334 Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.00% $4,308,783 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (.00035% of AV) 0.00035% $150,508 Estimated Property Tax Allocation City of Cupertino (Post-ERAF) 5.80% $249,909 Cupertino Unified School District 24.80% $1,068,578 Fremont Unified High School District 16.70% $719,567 Source: ADE, Inc. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 15 TABLE 1-5 ALTERNATIVE 1 ASSESSED VALUE ESTIMATES (2017$) LAND USE ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE PER SF [1] ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE PER UNIT LAND USE ESTIMATED TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE [1] ALTERNATIVE 2 PER SQ. FT. PER DWELLING UNIT TOTAL AV Residential TOTAL UNITS Market Rate Residential Rental Apartments (HDR) $821 $698,259 538 $375,663,342 Low Income BMR Units $300 $255,558 49 $12,522,342 Very Low Income BMR Units $244 $207,925 18 $3,742,650 Total 270 $391,928,334 NONRESIDENTIAL PER SQ. FT. BLDG. SQ. FT. TOTAL AV Retail $600 42,000 $25,200,000 Theater $500 27,500 $13,750,000 Total 466,350 $38,950,000 Source: KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE. P a g e 16 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s TABLE 1-6 ALTERNATIVE 1 AVERAGE INCOME AND ANNUAL TAXABLE RETAIL EXPENDITURES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS (2017$) Item Household Income and Retail Expenditures Annual Rent Payments Estimated Household Income Taxable Expenditure as % of Income Average Retail Expenditure Per Household Residential For-Rent Scenario Unit Type Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Market Rate Residential Rental Apartments (HDR) $42,330 $141,000 26.3% $37,100 Low Income BMR Units $15,516 $67,800 36.9% $25,000 Very Low Income BMR Units $12,624 $47,800 36.9% $17,600 Tax Calculation Estimated Annual Residential Retail Expenditure $21,501,600 Estimated Retail Capture within the City 65.0% Total Annual Residential Retail Expenditure $13,976,040 Sales Tax 1.0% $139,760 Source: ADE, Inc. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 17 TABLE 1-7 ALTERNATIVE 1 NON-RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL SALES TAX (2017$) Item Bldg. Sq. Ft. and Employees Assumption Annual Revenue at Buildout Annual Taxable Sales per Square Foot [1] Retail/Commercial 42,000 $350 $14,700,000 Sales Tax 1.0% $147,000 Annual Taxable Sales from New Employees New Employees Non Residential Development (Employee) Retail 76 $91,636 Theater 25 $30,000 Total Employees 101 Average Daily Taxable Sales per New Employee $10 Work Days per Year 240 Taxable Sales from New Employees 100.0% Estimated Retail Capture Rate within City of Cupertino 50.0% Total Taxable Sales from New Employees $121,636 Sales Tax 1.0% $9,366 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; Loopnet; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE. P a g e 18 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s ALTERNATIVE 2: GATEWAY MIXED USE Alternative 1 generates annual City revenues of about $1.6 million and annual costs of about $333,400, creating an annual net revenue surplus of $1,320,400, as shown in Table 2-1. TABLE 2-1 ALTERNATIVE 2 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY AT BUILD OUT (2017$) Total Project Revenues at Build Out $1,653,904 Total Project Expenditures at Build Out $333,438 Net Impact $1,320,466 Source: City of Cupertino FY 2017/2018 Proposed Operating Budget; KT Urban, ADE, Inc. Table 2-2 shows the detailed estimates of revenues and costs associated with the project and each individual land use. As noted in the methodology chapter, sales tax generated onsite in the retail space has been reduced by the amount of retail spending from residential uses and employees to avoid any possible double counting. Most of the net revenue for this Alternative is generated by the Hotel. The remaining tables detail the population and employment for the Alternative, the assessed value and property tax calculations, sales tax calculations and transient occupancy tax from the hotel. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 19 TABLE 2-2 ALTERNATIVE 2 ESTIMATED SUMMARY FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT (2017$) ITEM % OF TOTAL ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE RETAIL HOSPITALITY Annual Revenue Sales Tax 8.94% $147,916 $57,959 $5,600 $81,208 $2,849 Property Tax 14.92% $246,818 $92,900 $97,440 $14,616 $41,862 Transient Occupancy 58.53% $967,980 $0 $0 $0 $967,980 Utility Tax 2.40% $39,723 $27,069 $9,470 $775 $2,409 Franchise Fees 2.28% $37,737 $25,716 $8,996 $736 $2,289 Other Taxes 2.14% $35,378 $24,109 $8,434 $690 $2,146 Licenses & Permits 1.61% $26,627 $18,145 $6,348 $519 $1,615 Use of Money and Property 1.24% $20,455 $13,939 $4,876 $399 $1,241 Intergovernmental 0.36% $6,008 $4,094 $1,432 $117 $364 Charges for Services 5.30% $87,575 $59,679 $20,877 $1,708 $5,311 Fines & Forfeitures 0.45% $7,448 $5,076 $1,776 $145 $452 Miscellaneous 0.33% $5,412 $3,688 $1,290 $106 $328 Transfer-In 1.50% $24,827 $16,918 $5,918 $484 $1,506 Total General Fund Revenue 100.00 % $1,653,904 $349,292 $172,457 $101,803 $1,030,352 Annual Expenditure General Government 2.80% $9,349 $8,518 $621 $51 $158 Police 26.92% $89,751 $78,646 $8,311 $680 $2,114 Public Affairs 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Recreation and Community Services 27.45% $91,525 $91,525 $0 $0 $0 Planning and Community Development 11.67% $38,926 $34,110 $3,605 $295 $917 Public Works 31.16% $103,886 $91,032 $9,620 $787 $2,447 Non-Departmental and Transfers 0.00% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total General Fund Expenditure 100.00 % $333,438 $303,832 $22,156 $1,813 $5,637 ANNUAL GF SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $1,320,466 $45,460 $150,301 $99,990 $1,024,715 Source: City of Cupertino FY 2017/2018 Proposed Operating Budget; KT Urban; ADE, Inc. P a g e 20 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s TABLE 2-3 ALTERNATIVE 2 RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE POPULATION AT BUILD OUT LAND USE PER UNIT/SQ. FT. BUILD OUT RESIDENTS EMPLOYEES PERSONS SERVED Residential Population Market Rate 2.9 667 - 667 Low Income BMR 2 44 44 Very Low Income BMR 2.0 36 36 Total Residential Population 747 747 Employee Population Sq. Ft./Employee Office 300 - 933 467 Retail (Ground floor) 500 - 76 38 Hotel 500 - 212 106 Theater [4] 27,500 - 25 23 Total Employee Population 1,247 624 Total Residential and Employee Population 747 1,247 1,371 Total Persons Served 1,371 Source: KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE, Inc., May 2017. TABLE 2-4 ALTERNATIVE 2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES (2017$) ITEM ASSUMPTION ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILD OUT Property Tax (1% of Assessed Value) Residential Build Out Assessed Value (2015$) Table 2-5 $160,172,476 Non-Residential Buildout Assessed Value (2017$) Table 2-5 $265,375,000 Total Assessed Value $425,547,476 Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.00% $4,255,475 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (.00035% of AV) 0.00035% $144,130 Estimated Property Tax Allocation [2] City of Cupertino (Post-ERAF) [3] 5.80% $246,818 Cupertino Unified School District 24.80% $1,055,358 Fremont Unified High School District 16.70% $710,664 Source: ADE, Inc. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 21 TABLE 2-5 ALTERANTIVE 2 ASSESSED VALUE ESTIMATES (2017$) LAND USE ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE PER SF [1] ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE PER UNIT LAND USE ESTIMATED TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE [1] ALTERNATIVE 2 PER SQ. FT. PER DWELLING UNIT TOTAL AV Residential TOTAL UNITS Market Rate Residential Rental Apartments (HDR) $771 $655,685 230 $150,807,550 Low Income BMR Units $327 $255,558 22 $5,622,276 Very Low Income BMR Units $266 $207,925 18 $3,742,650 Total 270 $160,172,476 NONRESIDENTIAL PER SQ. FT. BLDG. SQ. FT. TOTAL AV Office $600 280,000 $168,000,000 Retail $600 42,000 $25,200,000 Hotel $500 116,850 $58,425,000 Community/Conference Center $500 27,500 $13,750,000 Total 466,350 $265,375,000 Source: KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE. P a g e 22 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s TABLE 2-6 AVERAGE INCOME AND ANNUAL TAXABLE RETAIL EXPENDITURES FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS (2017$) Item Household Income and Retail Expenditures Annual Rent Payments [2] Estimated Household Income [3] Taxable Expenditure as % of Income [4] Average Retail Expenditure Per Household Residential For-Rent Scenario Unit Type Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Market Rate Residential Rental Apartments (HDR) $39,809 $133,000 26.3% $35,000 Low Income BMR Units $15,516 $67,800 36.9% $25,000 Very Low Income BMR Units $12,624 $47,800 36.9% $17,600 Average Residential Retail Expenditure Estimated Annual Residential Retail Expenditure $8,916,800 Estimated Retail Capture within the City [5] 65.0% Total Annual Residential Retail Expenditure $5,795,920 Sales Tax 1.0% $57,959 Source: ADE, Inc. TABLE 2-7 A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 23 NON-RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL SALES TAX (2017$) Item Bldg. Sq. Ft. and Employees Assumption Annual Revenue at Buildout Annual Taxable Sales per Square Foot [1] Retail/Commercial 42,000 $350 $14,700,000 Sales Tax 1.0% $147,000 Annual Taxable Sales from New Employees New Employees Non Residential Development (Employee) Office 467 $560,000 Retail 76 $91,636 Hotel 212 $254,945 Theater 25 $30,000 Total Employees 780 Average Daily Taxable Sales per New Employee $10 Work Days per Year 240 Taxable Sales from New Employees 100.0% Estimated Retail Capture Rate within City of Cupertino 50.0% Total Taxable Sales from New Employees $936,582 Sales Tax 1.00% $9,366 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ULI; Loopnet; KT Urban, C2K Architecture, Inc., ADE. P a g e 24 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s TABLE 2-8 ESTIMATED ANNUAL TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES (2017$) ITEM ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT Hotel Rooms [1] 170 Annual Rooms Available 62,050 Occupancy Rate [2] 40,333 Average Daily Room Rate [3] $200 Estimated Annual Hotel Revenues $8,066,500 Annual Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) [4] $967,980 Source: KT Urban, ADE, Inc. [1] Hotel room numbers provided by KT Urban. [2] Assumptions based on recent hotel trends at 65%; ADE. [3] Average daily room rate provided by ADE, assume $200. [4] Annual TOT rate at 12% provided by City of Cupertino. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 25 APPENDIX: CITY BUDGET AND PER CAPITA COST/REVENUE FACTORS APPENDIX A-1 CITY OF CUPERTINO PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2017-18 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ITEMS CITY OF CUPERTINO ADJUSTMENT [2] ADJUSTED BUDGET % OF TOTAL ADJUSTE D BUDGET ADOPTED BUDGET FY 2014/15 LESS OFFSETTING ONE-TIME CIP AND STAFF SALARY EXPENSES NET ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENSES GENERAL FUND BY DEPARTMENT Annual Revenue By Department Sales Tax $22,790,000 $0 $22,790,000 30.9% Property Tax in-Lieu $7,472,520 $0 $7,472,520 10.1% Other Property Tax $13,284,480 $0 $13,284,480 18.0% Transient Occupancy $6,708,000 $0 $6,708,000 9.1% Utility Tax $3,200,000 $0 $3,200,000 4.3% Franchise Fees $3,040,000 $0 $3,040,000 4.1% Other Taxes $2,850,000 $0 $2,850,000 3.9% Licenses & Permits $2,145,000 $0 $2,145,000 2.9% Use of Money and Property $1,647,790 $0 $1,647,790 2.2% Intergovernmental $484,000 $0 $484,000 0.7% Charges for Services $13,337,897 $6,283,029 $7,054,868 9.6% Fines & Forfeitures $600,000 $0 $600,000 0.8% Miscellaneous $435,960 $0 $435,960 0.6% Transfer-In $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 2.7% Total General Fund Revenue $79,995,647 $6,283,029 $73,712,618 100.0% Annual Expenditure By Depart. [1] General Government $10,386,318 $9,347,686 $1,038,632 2.8% Police $12,344,307 $1,234,431 $11,109,876 30.0% Public Affairs $72,435 $72,435 $0 0.0% Recreation and Community Services $9,624,971 $2,406,243 $7,218,728 19.5% Planning and Community Develop. $9,637,008 $4,818,504 $4,818,504 13.0% Public Works $17,146,060 $4,286,515 $12,859,545 34.7% Non-Departmental and Transfers $15,767,734 $15,767,734 $0 0.0% Total Annual General Fund Expenditures $74,978,833 $37,933,548 $37,045,285 100.0% Source: City of Cupertino FY 2017/2018 Proposed Operating Budget; ADE, Inc. [1] Adjustments to operating expenditures reflect estimates of fixed vs. variable costs per EPS, The Oaks Economic and Fiscal Review, January 21, 2016. P a g e 26 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s APPENDIX A-2 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE POPULATION ITEM ASSUMPTION General Assumptions Base Fiscal Year [1] FY 2017-2018 General Demographic Characteristics City of Cupertino Population [2] 58,917 Employees (2014) [3] 39,864 City of Cupertino Persons Served [4] 78,849 City of Cupertino Visitors - Percent per Capita Weight for Residential 74.72% Inflationary/Appreciation Factors Property Tax 2.0% Other Revenue 3.0% Costs 3.0% Estimated Citywide Assessed Value [5] $21,350,000,000 Source: California Department of Finance; California Employment Development Department; ADE , Inc. [1] Reflects the City of Cupertino Fiscal Year 2017-2018 proposed budget. Revenues and expenditures are in 2017 dollars. This analysis does not reflect changes in values resulting from inflation or appreciation. [2] Based on population estimates from the California Department of Finance (DOF) data for January 1, 2017. [3] Based on 2014 US Census obtained from Onthemap.ces.census.gov and adjusted by additional 10% to account for self-employed workers. [4] Defined as total population plus half of total employees. [5] Total citywide FY2016-2017 assessed value based on Financial Report from County of Santa Clara. A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 27 APPENDIX A-3 RESIDENTIAL UNIT REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS (2017$) REVENUE ITEMS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [5] PER PERSONS SERVED UNIT MULTIPLIER ESTIMATING PROCEDURE/ DESCRIPTION Utility Tax 74.72% $40.58 Per Persons Served Franchise Fees 74.72% $38.55 Per Persons Served Other Taxes 74.72% $36.15 Per Persons Served Licenses & Permits 74.72% $27.20 Per Persons Served Use of Money and Property 74.72% $20.90 Per Persons Served Intergovernmental 74.72% $6.14 Per Persons Served Charges for Services 74.72% $89.47 Per Persons Served Fines & Forfeitures 74.72% $7.61 Per Persons Served Miscellaneous 74.72% $5.53 Per Persons Served Transfer-In 74.72% $25.36 Per Persons Served Source: ADE based on data in Tables A-1 and A-2. APPENDIX A-4 NON-RESIDENTIAL UNIT REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS (2015$) REVENUE ITEMS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [5] PER EMPLOYEE UNIT/CASE STUDY MULTIPLIE R ESTIMATING PROCEDURE/ DESCRIPTION Utility Tax 25.28% $20.29 Per Person Served Franchise Fees 25.28% $19.28 Per Person Served Other Taxes 25.28% $18.07 Per Person Served Licenses & Permits 25.28% $13.60 Per Person Served Use of Money and Property 25.28% $10.45 Per Person Served Intergovernmental 25.28% $3.07 Per Person Served Charges for Services 25.28% $44.74 Per Person Served Fines & Forfeitures 25.28% $3.80 Per Person Served Miscellaneous 25.28% $2.76 Per Person Served Transfer-In 25.28% $12.68 Per Person Served Source: ADE based on data in Tables A-1 and A-2. P a g e 28 | A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s APPENDIX A-5 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL UNIT EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS EXPENDITURE ITEMS RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATING PROCEDURE/DESC RIPTION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PER CAPITA UNIT MULTIPLIE R ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PER CAPITA UNIT MULTIPLIE R General Government 2.88% n/a 2.88% n/a Case Study Police 74.72% $140.90 25.28% $70.45 Per Person Served Public Affairs 74.72% $0.00 25.28% $0.00 Per Person Served Recreation and Community Services 100.00% $122.52 0.00% $0.00 Per Person Served Planning and Community Development 74.72% $61.11 25.28% $30.56 Per Person Served Public Works 74.72% $163.09 25.28% $81.55 Per Person Served Non-Departmental and Transfers 74.72% $0.00 25.28% $0.00 Per Person Served Source: ADE based on data in Tables A-1 and A-2. MARKET STUDY AND PRODUCT RECOMMENDATION Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel 21267 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO:PROPOSE Mr. Mark Tersini KT Urban 21710 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200 Cupertino, California 95014 mtersini@aol.com (408) 257-2100 PREPARED BY: Jaime Law Hospitality Link International, Inc. 2004 New Brunswick Drive San Mateo, California 94402 jlaw@hospitalitylink.net (415) 613-0615 July 24, 2017 Mr. Mark Tersini KT Urban 21710 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 200 Cupertino, California 95014 Re: Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel Cupertino, California Dear Mr. Tersini: Pursuant to your request, we herewith submit our market study pertaining to the above-captioned property. We have inspected the real estate and analyzed the hotel market conditions in Cupertino, California and the greater Silicon Valley market area. We have studied the proposed project, and the results of our fieldwork and analyses are presented in this report. We have also reviewed the proposed improvements for this site. Based upon our field research, we provide you with our recommendation regarding the most appropriate lodging product and brand options for your site. This study is subject to the comments made throughout this report and to all assumptions and limiting conditions set forth herein. Sincerely, Hospitality Link International, Inc. Jaime Law, Director jlaw@hospitalitylink.net, +1 (415) 613-0615 Holden Lim, President holdenlim@hospitalitylink.net, +1 (415) 810-0833 Table of Contents SECTION TITLE PAGE 1. Executive Summary 1 2. Description of the Site and Neighborhood 14 3. Market Area Analysis 20 4. Supply and Demand Analysis 40 5. Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project 72 6. Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation 80 7. Millennial Focused Hotel 87 8. Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 111 Addenda Qualifications Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 1 1. Executive Summary The subject of the study is the proposed hotel component in Westport Cupertino. Westport Cupertino is a mixed-use development that will include a 7-story, 280,000 square feet office building, a 6-story hotel (subject hotel), three 5-story residential buildings containing a total of 270 residential units, a theatre, a transit center, and 3- story, below-grade parking. Westport Cupertino will serve as a vibrant mixed-use gateway district providing affordable and senior housing, extensive community benefits, significant mobility options, and a retail, entertainment, and civic destination for the greater Cupertino community. The developer of the proposed subject hotel is KT Urban, which is based in Cupertino, California. RENDERING OF PROJECT The street address of the subject site is 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014. Some specific businesses in the area include Apple Incorporated, Cisco Systems, Seagate, Target, Whole Foods, Verizon Wireless, Panera Bread, Peet’s Coffee, Chase, Alexander’s Steakhouse and Bank of America. Hotels in the immediate area Subject of the Market Study and Product Recommendation Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 2 include the Juniper Hotel by Hilton, Aloft Cupertino, and the Cupertino Inn. The Residence Inn Main Street and Hyatt House at the Vallco Center are under construction. Located southwest of the Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue intersection in Cupertino, Apple Inc., is nearing completion of its new 175-acre “Apple Park” which started construction in late 2013. In April 2017, 12,000 of its employees began moving in. Facilities at Apple Park include a 120,000-square-foot underground assembly space with seating for 1,000, a $74 million gym facility, a large lobby, restrooms and back -of- the-house facilities including a catering kitchen, and a 350-stall parking structure. The subject site enjoys a favorable location on a major thoroughfare and is proximate to a number of tech companies (Apple Park is located four miles away from the subject). The site is adjacent to Highway 85, which is a major local access route located in the western portion of Cupertino. Overall, the supportive nature of the development in the immediate area is considered appropriate for and conducive to the operation of a hotel. The effective date of the report is July 24, 2017. The subject site was inspected by Jaime Law and Holden Lim on June 8, 2017. Silicon Valley benefitted from a diverse and expanding economy after the dot‐com bust until the second half of 2007, when the economy started to contract into a severe recession that lasted until early 2010. Positive office space absorption, improving unemployment rates, and favorable hotel demand statistics indicate that the area has experienced an economic rebound since 2010. Silicon Valley strong economic growth in the past three years is supported by expanding company headquarters, strong commercial leasing activity, a surge in airport passenger traffic, and declining unemployment rates. The near-term and long‐term outlook for the market is optimistic because of its highly educated labor force and the presence of a healthy and rapidly expanding technology industry. Some specific businesses in the area include Apple Incorporated, Cisco Systems, Seagate, Target, Whole Foods, Verizon Wireless, Panera Bread, Peet’s Coffee, Chase, Alexander’s Steakhouse and Bank of America. Hotels in the immediate area include the Juniper Hotel by Hilton, Aloft Cupertino, and the Cupertino Inn. The Residence Inn Main Street and Hyatt House at the Vallco Center are under construction. Located southwest of the Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue intersection in Cupertino, Apple Inc., is nearing completion of its new 175-acre “Apple Park” which started construction in late 2013. In April 2017, 12,000 of its employees began moving in. Facilities at Apple Park include a 120,000-square-foot underground assembly space with seating for 1,000, a $74 million gym facility, a large lobby, restrooms and back-of-the-house facilities including a catering kitchen, and a 350-stall parking structure. Pertinent Dates Summary of Economic and Hotel Market Trends Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 3 The subject site enjoys a favorable location on a major thoroughfare and is proximate to a number of tech companies (Apple Park is located four miles away from the subject). The site is adjacent to Highway 85, which is a major local access route located in the western portion of Cupertino. Overall, the supportive nature of the development in the immediate area is considered appropriate for and conducive to the operation of a hotel. Following the great recession, the county unemployment rate declined to its lowest historical level, at 2.9% in May 2017. This can be attributed to the high concentration of corporate headquarters, technology companies, and various start‐up and service businesses in Silicon Valley, which has contributed to the region's economic strength. According to recent publications and development officials, the economy thrives and industries in Silicon Valley are expecting continued job growth. 2016 was a record breaking year for Silicon Valley’s airport. According to airport officials, the growth is the direct result of the addition of several new international flights that were added in 2016. Passenger traffic at the San Francisco International Airport represented a new all-time record for passenger traffic with a total of 53.1 million passengers traveling through its facilities. Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport also recorded a new all-time high passenger traffic with a total of 10.8 million passengers. The Silicon Valley hotel market experienced a notable increase in supply in the past four years, adding 1,334 rooms to the market. Despite the growth in supply, the market has quickly absorbed this supply increase and continued to register high occupancy levels in the 80% range for the past four years. In the year-to-date period through May 2017, occupied room nights continued to grow at robust rates, increasing by 7.3% compared to the same period last year. Market-wide average rate registered a double-digit increase in 2014 and 2015, but began moderating in 2016 and the year-to-date period through May 2017. With sustained levels of peak lodging demand in the market, area hoteliers will continue to evidence the sustained favorable operating performance of the market, with further increases in occupancy and average rate, albeit, at moderate growth rates. Hoteliers in the market reported that the continued increase in average rate is attributed to the growth in mid-week commercial lodging demand from corporate business travelers. The proposed subject hotel will be constructed and operated to meet the standards of an upscale or upper-upscale hotel. The following table illustrates the market trends for the upscale, upper-upscale, and luxury hotel segments. The hotels in this set are in the upscale, upper-upscale, and luxury hotel segments located in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Los Altos, Campbell, San Jose, and Los Gatos. Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 4 FIGURE 1-1 HISTORICAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TRENDS (STR) Year Average Daily Room Count Available Room Nights Change Occupied Room Nights Change Occupancy Average Daily Rate Change RevPAR Change 2011 4,098 1,495,831 — 1,114,330 — 74.5 %$143.15 — $106.64 — 2012 4,095 1,494,830 (0.1)%1,169,455 4.9 %78.2 154.54 8.0 %120.90 13.4 % 2013 4,219 1,539,845 3.0 1,225,558 4.8 79.6 168.99 9.4 134.50 11.2 2014 4,258 1,554,255 0.9 1,250,889 2.1 80.5 189.12 11.9 152.21 13.2 2015 4,985 1,819,646 17.1 1,437,910 15.0 79.0 216.50 14.5 171.08 12.4 2016 5,240 1,912,438 5.1 1,524,952 6.1 79.7 225.30 4.1 179.65 5.0 5.0 %6.5 %9.5 %11.0 % Year-to-Date Through May 2016 5,231 789,908 — 614,598 — 77.8 %$229.42 — $178.51 — 2017 5,473 826,423 4.6 %659,300 7.3 %79.8 232.32 1.3 %185.34 3.8 % Average Annual Compounded Change: 2011-2016 Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 5 From our research, we conclude that the major national hotel brands are widely represented in the market. Some brands are better represented than others, such as Marriott with 25 hotels (including all Starwood hotels prior to the merger); Hilton with 14 hotels (two Hiltons, two DoubleTrees, two Embassy Suites, three Hilton Garden Inns, one Curio Collection, three Hampton Inn, and two Homewood Suites); and Intercontinental, with approximately 8 hotels each ranging from full-service to select- service hotels; Hyatt has a presence with the Hyatt Santa Clara, two Hyatt Houses and a Hyatt Place, while the luxury segment has the least representation: Fairmont and Four Seasons. It is also important to note that independent hotels comprise a large category of non-branded hotels. Hotel Valencia, Toll House, Hotel Los Gatos, and Stanford Park Hotel are among the highest rated independent hotels in the Silicon Valley. The proposed subject will operate in a dynamic market of exclusive upscale hotels and is expected to command above average rates due to its new condition upon opening. The hotels that will compete directly with the subject hotel are in the upscale, upper- upscale, and luxury segment class. The tech industry in Silicon Valley supports occupancy levels for many months in excess of 80%. Business travel is strong Monday through Thursday, with many operators reporting sold-out nights on Tuesday and Wednesday. Due to the transient commercial nature of accommodated demand, market-wide occupancy is strong throughout the year from February to October and declines during the holiday months. Commercial travel is relatively constant throughout the year, although some declines are noticeable in late December and during other holiday periods. Corporate travel in the market is generated by a variety of corporation, including Apple, Google, Cisco, Oracle, Symantec, Agilent, Panasonic, and other local firms. As many of these high-tech companies relocate and expand operations (Apple in Cupertino), demand growth should continue. In the near term, the outlook for commercial demand is positive as technology companies continue to hire, expand office space, and increase travel budgets. The long term outlook is also positive as tech companies establish a strong demand base in the market. In addition to the opening of Apple Park, the opening of the Hyatt House, Residence Inn Cupertino, and AC Hotel Sunnyvale are expected to induce lodging demand to the market. Furthermore, in 2019, when the remaining high-quality hotel projects in this study start to open its doors, induced demand will more than double its size. The opening of high-quality, upscale properties will add new product that is either affiliated with a strong national chain or uniquely position as an independent property. The Marriott and Hyatt reservation systems and loyalty programs are expected to induce additional demand in all segments, while independent hotels will be uniquely positioned Summary Accommodated Demand and Market- wide Occupancy Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 6 to cater to sophisticated tech travelers, as well as leisure and meeting and group demand. Accordingly, we have incorporated 21,800 annual room nights into our analysis, which is expected to be absorbed by the new hotels opening in Cupertino, including the subject hotel, and will support healthy occupancy levels. The following table details our projection of lodging demand growth for the subject market, including the total number of occupied room nights and any residual unaccommodated demand in the market. Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 7 FIGURE 1-2 ACCOMMODATED DEMAND 1,201,001 1,225,021 1,237,272 1,262,017 1,274,637 1,274,637 1,274,637 2,483 6,686 13,162 14,739 14,739 14,739 14,739 1,203,485 1,231,707 1,250,434 1,276,756 1,289,376 1,289,376 1,289,376 Growth Rate 5.2 %2.3 %1.5 %2.1 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % 240,200 245,004 247,454 249,929 252,428 252,428 252,428 497 1,379 4,387 4,479 4,479 4,479 4,479 240,697 246,383 251,842 254,408 256,907 256,907 256,907 5.2 %2.4 %2.2 %1.0 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % 157,083 160,225 161,827 163,446 165,080 165,080 165,080 331 881 2,527 2,619 2,619 2,619 2,619 157,414 161,106 164,354 166,064 167,699 167,699 167,699 3.2 %2.3 %2.0 %1.0 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % Base Demand 1,598,285 1,630,251 1,646,553 1,675,392 1,692,145 1,692,145 1,692,145 Induced Demand 3,311 8,946 20,076 21,837 21,837 21,837 21,837 Total Demand 1,601,596 1,639,196 1,666,630 1,697,229 1,713,983 1,713,983 1,713,983 Overall Demand Growth 3.2 %2.5 %2.9 %2.3 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % Market Mix 75.1 %75.1 %75.0 %75.2 %75.2 %75.2 %75.2 % 15.0 15.0 15.1 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 5,251 5,253 5,272 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240 Hyatt House (Vallco)²10 111 111 111 111 111 Residence Inn Cupertino ³57 135 135 135 135 135 135 Kimco Cupertino Village Hotel 4 54 93 93 93 93 Cupertino Hotel (Goodyear Tires)5 26 78 78 78 78 AC Hotel Sunnyvale (T2)6 28 47 47 47 47 47 RI Silicon Valley I and II Expansion 7 24 47 47 47 47 T2 Dual Brand (150 AC and 200 Autograph) 8 59 88 88 88 Available Rooms per Night 1,937,440 1,980,100 2,090,883 2,184,154 2,194,654 2,194,654 2,194,654 Nights per Year 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 Total Supply 5,308 5,425 5,728 5,984 6,013 6,013 6,013 Rooms Supply Growth 1.3 %2.2 %5.6 %4.5 %0.5 %0.0 %0.0 % Marketwide Occupancy 81.2 %81.4 %79.3 %77.7 %78.1 %78.1 %78.1 % ² Opening in December 2018 of the 75% competitive, 148-room Hyatt House (Vallco) ³ Opening in August 2017 of the 75% competitive, 180-room Residence Inn Cupertino 4 Opening in June 2019 of the 50% competitive, 185-room Kimco Cupertino Village Hotel 5 Opening in September 2019 of the 50% competitive, 156-room Cupertino Hotel (Goodyear Tires) 6 Opening in June 2018 of the 25% competitive, 187-room AC Hotel Sunnyvale (T2) 7 Opening in July 2019 of the 25% competitive, 188-room RI Silicon Valley I and II Expansion 8 Opening in May 2020 of the 25% competitive, 350-room T2 Dual Brand (150 AC and 200 Autograph) Totals Commercial Meeting and Group Leisure Existing Hotel Supply Growth Rate Leisure Base Demand Base Demand Induced Demand Growth Rate Total Demand Induced Demand Total Demand Total Demand Meeting and Group Base Demand Induced Demand Commercial 2020 2021 2022 2023201720182019 Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 8 Westport Cupertino will serve as a vibrant mixed-use gateway district providing affordable and senior housing, extensive community benefits, dynamic office space, significant mobility options, and a retail, entertainment, and civic destination for the greater Cupertino community. Along with the residential users, the office users will provide for great vitality throughout the day. Office users utilize hotel and retail food service amenities in the mixed-use development during the day, while residential users will frequent these establishments throughout the day and evening. Office space is an integral part of a vibrant community, in which complementary uses such as hotel and retail get full utilization by day and night, generating optimal social and economic returns to the community and the city as a whole. It is important to note, the on-site transit center will provide the basis for a future connection for rapid transit along State Route 85, 50 onsite parking stalls, and a shuttle drop-off/pick-up area, thus removing commuter buses and improving pedestrian and bike safety along Mary Avenue. Rapid Bus 523 will operate along Stevens Creek Boulevard and transport hotel guests to and from the San Jose Convention Center and other regional destinations, enhancing regional connectivity. Westport Cupertino will offer a modern, functional layout conducive to, and supportive of an upscale hotel operation, a class-A office space leased by a corporate tenant, and upscale residences enhanced with neighborhood amenities. The following section will discuss our recommendations for the hotel component, which takes into account the previously discussed complementary facilities which will enhance the hotel operation. Our research of the hotel market concludes that demand for upscale hotels with high- quality services and amenities exists. The subject location is not ideal for a group hotel (over 200 rooms) due to its distance from the Santa Clara and San Jose convention centers; and according to representatives at the Juniper Hotel (a Curio by Hilton), 90% to 95% of corporate business travels from within a 10-mile radius. Typically, tech- industry guests seeking boutique lifestyle/affordable luxury brands. The weekend guest is visiting from LA, staying for pre- or post-convention events, stopping en route to Napa Valley, or visiting family in area. Because of the high concentration of extended-stay hotels in close proximity to area demand generators along El Camino Real and two under construction in the City of Cupertino, the subject’s location is not ideal for an extended- stay hotel. Operators and hotel investors agreed that the subject site has potential for a hotel ranging from 145 to 195 rooms in size that will accommodate mid-week business from local demand generators and weekend visitors. Because food and beverage is typically unprofitable for area hotels and food options abound in the neighborhood and proposed mixed-use development, our product recommendation focuses on boutique lifestyle hotels with a heavy emphasis on beverage service and independent upscale hotels with a leased restaurant operation. Westport Cupertino Complementary Uses Product Recommendation Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 9 Based upon our field research and our knowledge of area hotels and demand generators, our recommendation regarding the most appropriate lodging product for your site is for a 180-room boutique lifestyle hotel with a focus on beverage, a “B&F” (Beverage & Food) lounge area offering cocktails, beverages and small plates (not three meals a day – evenings only). A boutique lifestyle select brand, commercially oriented hotel that will appeal to tech-industry guests seeking a lifestyle brand, as well as weekend visitors looking for a modern, upscale hotel option near leisure attractions. Our product recommendation includes an open multimedia lobby area with comfortable sofas featuring free Wi-Fi, a healthy crafted small-plate breakfast buffet (paid offering), and a 24-hour market pantry. The meeting space offering should feature a minimum of three medium-sized rooms (combined for a large ballroom) for business, social or family events, and two media scape boardrooms featuring workspace on demand. The guestroom product should at the very least meet upper-upscale standards, with plush bedding, simplistic design with no art work, a workspace, free high-speed Internet access, and high-quality bath amenities. Guestroom bathroom shower stalls with high pressure rain showers instead of tub and shower combination, and suites containing a separate soaking tub. The fitness area should feature a room fully equipped with state-of-the-art equipment. The outdoor areas may feature local fauna landscape and a comfortable seating area with an outdoor fire pit. It is our understanding that five boutique theatres, including a TED-talk style theatre will be located on the underground levels of the hotel. This concept will not only enhance the overall guest travel experience, but also provide an additional neighborhood amenity. A roof-top bar open to hotel guests, as well as local business and community patrons will benefit from the views of the valley. It is our understanding the hotel will be part of an upscale mixed-use development containing retail commercial space and office space, as well as an upscale residential component. The hotel can be complemented by a ground-floor leased restaurant and bar operation within the mixed-use development. Our brand and facility recommendation considers the following factors: • The proposed site is in a suburban hotel location with excellent highway and roadway frontage and good visibility/accessibility. • Existing surrounding uses of the site include multi-family residential, office, and a restaurant. • The proposed development of the overall site includes multi-family residences, office, condos, and supportive retail uses. • The shortage of quality upscale boutique lifestyle hotel developments with community space in Cupertino. Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 10 • The hotel will be developed by an experienced commercial developer and managed by a reputable, experienced third-party hotel operator under a major national brand affiliation. • Demand to the overall market is commercial-driven, resulting in strong weekday performance. According to local operators, weekend business can often be challenging, particularly for hotels in more suburban locations such as Sunnyvale/Cupertino. Meeting and group business is driven by the local tech companies and the Santa Clara convention center. Some social meeting and group business is present from weddings, reunions, etc. • The hotel’s design, brand, and operations will be of a caliber that will drive demand to the property. The hotel will have distinctive characteristics and food and beverage offerings that will also be positioned to enhance the overall neighborhood and appeal to the city’s residents, as roof-top bars and open lounge/community space options are limited in the immediate neighborhood. • Given the subject site's suburban highway location and considering the average square footage of comparable properties in the area, micro-units would not be the most optimum size for this market. Every operator/management company/hotel company has different design and facility visions. While we have recommended a baseline level of hotel facilities, the space program for the subject site would depend on the branding, operator, and developer. Our recommendations, therefore, are general in nature, correlating the overall consistencies among the options that were considered based on the location and likely positioning of the project. The following table illustrates our product recommendation, including type of product, number and type of rooms, meeting-space square footage, and other required amenities. Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 11 FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION Proposed Boutique Lifestyle Select Hotel Total Number of Rooms Standard King Double Queen King Suite Hospitality Suite Guestroom Mix 180 110 45 20 5 4,500 25.0 Units Guestrooms 180 65,700 Meeting Rooms Up to 5 Rooms 4,500 Fitness Room/Pool 2,100 Business Area 200 Lounge and Food and Beverage 4,500 Public Space and Lobby 32,000 109,000 Theater at Hotel 27,500 Parking 215 68,800 205,300 Total Building Area with Theatre and Parking (Estimate) Room Mix Indoor Meeting Space (SF) Meeting Space per Room Description Underground parking 5 boutique theatres including a TED-Talk style theatre Total Square Feet Simplistic design; consistent FF&E in all rooms; modern lighting; closet featuring exposed design; work desk; technology package; complimentary WiFi; at least three room type options. Simplistic design with clean aesthetic; distinct tone-on-tone color palate; local connection through museum-quality artifacts; flexible layout; market pantry Total Hotel Building Area (Estimate) A 4,500 SF divisible, multi-use meeting room, two private boardrooms Fully equipped fitness room and tempreature-controlled pool Multimedia lobby area with comfortable sofas featuring free Wi-Fi "B&F” lounge area offering cocktails, beverages and small plates (not three meals a day – evenings only). Crafted small-plate breakfast buffet (paid offering). Roof-top Bar. Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 12 FIGURE 1-4 PROPOSED HOTEL CONCEPTUAL RECOMMENDATION Proposed Boutique Lifesyle Hotel Standard Room Size 300 350 Meeting Space 20 35 Lobby Food and Beverage Recreational Facilities Amenities & Services Complimentary high-speed WIFI Locally-curated Honor Bar Complimentary "Social Hour" Keyless room entry Roof-top bar Market Pantry - grab'n'go options Complimentary shuttle service to nearby companies Minimum two computer workstations Other An eco-emphasized, LEED-certified building would be viewed favorably within the market Boutique Lifesyle Hotel Social Lounge - The lobby should be designed as a communal "living room" space with an open floor plan and multiple, flexible seating arrangements. Connectivity in the lobby is crucial - high speed complimentary WiFi and plenty of hardwiring should be available for guests to plug in their personal devices (electric & USB). Limited F&B, with an emphasis on Beverage, should be offered in the lobby. Seating should be arranged to allow flexibility for guests who want to socialize/collaborate with other guests, but also offer individual seating options for guests who need to work independently. Digital self-check-in kiosks in addition to a more traditional guest check-in option should be offered. The meeting space needs to be flexible and innovative—designed to appeal to both business and social use. The meeting space should blend seamlessly with the public areas and provide new and creative event space to the market. Currently, the meeting space offered in full-service hotels in the market are fairly traditional — generally comprising one boardroom, one or more breakout rooms, and a ballroom. For the proposed Boutique Lifesyle Hotel, flexible ballroom space (approx. 3,000 sf) incorporating a courtyard or outdoor view is recommended. Two boardroom-style meeting rooms are also recommended. Interviews with market participants reveal that high-speed Internet and sophisticated AV equipment in the meeting spaces are crucial to attract the local tech companies. According to some local operators, hotels may also be competing with some of the larger tech companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.) for meeting space as many of these companies offer their own meeting space and/or food & beverage services, and rent them out to other parties. The meeting space should be fully equipped with up-to-date technology and designed in a way that upgrades are able to be handled easily. The fitness area is important for a boutique lifestyle property and needs to be open with natural light and ample equipment. A larger, full-service fitness center shared between hotel guests and residences may also enhance the overall plan for the mixed-use community. An outdoor swimming pool/whirlpool shared between hotel guests and residences would also make sense, and If possible, the outdoor pool area should offer lounge-style seating to attract leisure guests on the weekends. There are limited high-quality food and beverage options within the immediate neighborhood. For a Boutique Lifesyle Select hotel, a casual dining option with full bar/lounge serving small plate, tapas style food is recommended. The hotel may also opt to lease a ground floor facility to an experienced F&B operator, which should enhance the overall neighborhood and appeal to local patrons as well as hotel guests. A limited in-room dining menu should be offered. A roof-top bar with with views of the valley should provide guests and local patrons with a destination amenity offering favorite local brews and cocktails, as well as serving a casual dining menu. Minimum Maximum Given the subject site's suburban highway location and considering the average square footage of comparable properties in the area, micro-units would not be the most optimum size for this market. Standard guestroom size at the competitive hotels range from 300 to 350 square feet, we recommend a size in the lower end of this range with enhanced functionality. As a Boutique Lifestyle hotel, some suites should also be offered (10% of guestrooms). Recommended 310 25Square Foot per Guestroom Square Feet Unit Executive Summary Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 13 The objective of this study is to perform market research in order to assess hotel market conditions and provide a recommendation for the optimal hotel brand and product for the site. We understand the report will be shared with the City of Cupertino’s planning commission and available during public hearings. The methodology used in preparing this study is detailed step by step. 1. All information was collected and analyzed by the staff of Hospitality Link International, Inc. Information was supplied by the client. 2. The subject site has been evaluated from the viewpoint of its physical utility for the future operation of a hotel, as well as access, visibility, and other relevant factors. 3. The subject property's proposed improvements have been reviewed for their expected quality of construction, design, and layout efficiency. 4. The surrounding economic environment, on both an area and neighborhood level, has been reviewed to identify specific hostelry-related economic and demographic trends that may have an impact on future demand for hotels. 5. Dividing the market for hotel accommodations into individual segments defines specific market characteristics for the types of travelers expected to utilize the area's hotels. The factors investigated include purpose of visit, average length of stay, facilities and amenities required, seasonality, daily demand fluctuations, and price sensitivity. 6. An analysis of existing and proposed competition provides an indication of the current accommodated demand, along with market penetration and the degree of competitiveness. Unless noted otherwise, we have inspected the competitive lodging facilities summarized in this report. 7. Based on the data and information gathered during the fieldwork phase, in- house analyses, knowledge of the hospitality industry, area hotel trends, and investor requirements, we performed a supply and demand analysis to determine historical and projected overall market performance. 8. Based upon our field research, knowledge of the hospitality industry, and interviews with investors and city officials, we provided you with our recommendation regarding the most appropriate lodging product and brand options for your site. Scope of Work Description of the Site and Neighborhood Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 14 2. Description of the Site and Neighborhood The suitability of the land for the operation of a lodging facility is an important consideration affecting the economic viability of a property and its ultimate marketability. Factors such as size, topography, access, visibility, and the availability of utilities have a direct impact on the desirability of a particular site. The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant formed by Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The street address of the subject site is 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014. The subject site for the proposed mixed-use development comprises two parcels of land totaling approximately 8.1 acres, or 352,836 square feet. The parcel's adjacent uses are set forth in the following table. FIGURE 2-1 SUBJECT PARCEL'S ADJACENT USES Direction Boundary North May Avenue Residential Units South Stevens Creek Blvd.De Anza College East May Avenue Open Space; Residential Units; Commercial West Highway 85 Residential Units and Commercial Adjacent Uses Physical Characteristics Description of the Site and Neighborhood Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 15 AERIAL VIEW OF SUBJECT SITE Primary vehicular access to the proposed subject site will be provided by Stevens Creek Boulevard. Access will also be available from Mary Avenue. The topography of the parcel is generally flat, and the site’s shape is irregular. Upon completion of construction, the subject site will not contain any significant portion of undeveloped land that could be sold, entitled, and developed for alternate use. The site is expected to be fully developed with site or building improvements, which will contribute to the overall profitability of the proposed hotel. It is important to analyze the site in regard to ease of access with respect to regional and local transportation routes and demand generators. The subject site is readily accessible to a variety of local, county, state, and interstate highways. Site Utility Access and Visibility Description of the Site and Neighborhood Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 16 MAP OF REGIONAL ACCESS ROUTES Primary regional access through the area is provided by north/south Interstate 880, which extends north to Oakland, and Interstate 280, which extends northwest to San Francisco. U.S. Highway 101 is another major highway, providing access to such cities as San Mateo to the north and Salinas to the south. The subject property's market is served by a variety of additional local routes such as Highway 85 and Highway 82, which are illustrated on the map. From Interstate 280, motorists’ merge onto Highway 85 and immediately after, take the Stevens Creek Boulevard exit, making a left turn (going west) onto this thoroughfare for approximately half a block. The subject site will be visible from the motorists’ left-hand side; motorists’ proceed to making a U-turn on Mary Avenue and immediately access the subject site on the right-hand side. The subject site is located near a busy intersection and benefits from very good visibility from within its local neighborhood Description of the Site and Neighborhood Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 17 and from Highway 85. Overall, the subject site benefits from excellent accessibility and visibility attributes. The subject property is served by the Mineta San Jose International Airport, which is located approximately 8 miles to the northeast of the subject site. From the airport, motorists follow signs to Interstate 880 and travel south on this thoroughfare to Interstate 280. Motorists then proceed northbound on Interstate 280 until its intersection with Stevens Creek Boulevard, continuing to the subject property as previously noted. The subject hotel is also served by the San Francisco International Airport, which is located approximately 31 miles to the northwest of the subject site. The neighborhood surrounding a lodging facility often has an impact on a hotel's status, image, class, style of operation, and sometimes its ability to attract and properly serve a particular market segment. This section of the report investigates the subject property's neighborhood and evaluates any pertinent location factors that could affect its occupancy, average rate, and overall profitability. The subject neighborhood is generally defined by Interstate 280 to the north, Highway 85 to the west, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and Lawrence Expressway to the east. The neighborhood is characterized by residences, restaurants, office buildings, supermarkets, gas stations, and retail shopping centers that contain nationally recognized chain stores. Within the immediate proximity of the site, land use is primarily residential and commercial in nature. Some specific businesses in the area include Apple Incorporated, Cisco Systems, Seagate, Target, Whole Foods, Verizon Wireless, Panera Bread, Peet’s Coffee, Chase, Alexander’s Steakhouse and Bank of America. Hotels in the immediate area include the Juniper Hotel by Hilton, Aloft Cupertino, and the Cupertino Inn. The Residence Inn Main Street and Hyatt House at the Vallco Center are under construction. Located southwest of the Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue intersection in Cupertino, Apple Inc., is nearing completion of its new 175-acre “Apple Park” which started construction in late 2013. In April 2017, 12,000 of its employees began moving in. Facilities at Apple Park include a 120,000-square-foot underground assembly space with seating for 1,000, a $74 million gym facility, a large lobby, restrooms and back -of-the-house facilities including a catering kitchen, and a 350-stall parking structure. Overall, the supportive nature of the development in the immediate area is considered appropriate for and conducive to the operation of a hotel. The subject site will reportedly be served by all necessary utilities. We assume that these will be acquired from the most cost-effective providers within the local market. Airport Access Neighborhood Utilities Description of the Site and Neighborhood Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 18 Geological and soil reports were not provided to us or made available for our review during the preparation of this report. We are not qualified to evaluate soil conditions other than by a visual inspection of the surface; no extraordinary conditions were apparent. We were not informed of any site-specific nuisances or hazards, and there were no visible signs of toxic ground contaminants at the time of our inspection. Because we are not experts in this field, we do not warrant the absence of hazardous waste and urge the reader to obtain an independent analysis of these factors. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the subject site is located in flood zone X. The flood zone definition for X designation is as follows: Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. According to the local planning office, the subject property is zoned as follows: P (CG, Res) – Planned Development (Commercial and Residential). A planned development zoning district in which the uses are intended to be a mix of general commercial and residential. Under the General Plan Community Vision 2040, and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, This zoning designation allows for most commercial uses, including office complexes, residential units, retail centers, service industries, and hotels. At the time of this report, KT Urban was seeking a General Plan Amendment for its Westport Cupertino Mixed-Use Development, which includes the following items: • Land Use Designation of Office / Office Allocation SF: Request to add the revise the land use designation on the project site from Commercial/Residential to Commercial/Office/Residential, and add an Office allocation of 280,000 SF to the project site. • Increase in Hotel Allocation: Request to increase the hotel allocation of 170 rooms/"keys" to the project site. • Increase in Building Height: Request to revise from 45'-0" to 88'-0" for tallest buildings on site. • Variation of the Slope Setback: Request to revise the 1:1 slope setback along Stevens Creek Blvd from 1:1 to 3:1 at the proposed Office Building and 2:1 at the proposed Hotel Building. An amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan was also requested, which includes the following items: Soil and Subsoil Conditions Nuisances and Hazards Flood Zone Zoning Description of the Site and Neighborhood Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 19 • Side Interior Setback: Request to revise setback at the western property line along Highway 85, specifically at the Transit Center, from 1/2 the building height to 0'-0" setback, and specifically at the Office Building to 10'-0" setback. • Residential Common Open Space: Request to revise the residential common open space from 150 SF/unit to 80 SF/unit. The landscape common open space will be 70% of the total. For the purposes of this study, we assume that all necessary permits and approvals will be secured (including an appropriate liquor license if applicable) and that the subject property will be constructed in accordance with local zoning ordinances, building codes, and all other applicable regulations. Our zoning analysis should be verified before any physical changes are made to the site. We are not aware of any easements attached to the property that would significantly affect the utility of the site or marketability of this project. We have analyzed the issues of size, topography, access, visibility, and the availability of utilities. The subject site enjoys a favorable location on a major thoroughfare and is proximate to a number of tech companies (Apple Park is located four miles away from the subject). The site is adjacent to Highway 85, which is a major local access route located in the western portion of Cupertino. In general, the site is well suited for hotel use, with excellent access, visibility, and topography for an effective operation. Easements and Encroachments Conclusion Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 20 3. Market Area Analysis The economic vitality of the market area and neighborhood surrounding the subject site is an important consideration in forecasting lodging demand and future income potential. Economic and demographic trends that reflect the amount of visitation provide a basis from which to project lodging demand. The purpose of the market area analysis is to review available economic and demographic data to determine whether the local market will undergo economic growth, stabilize, or decline. In addition to predicting the direction of the economy, the rate of change must be quantified. These trends are then correlated based on their propensity to reflect variations in lodging demand, with the objective of forecasting the amount of growth or decline in visitation by individual market segment, e.g. commercial, meeting and group, and leisure. The market area for a lodging facility is the geographical region where the sources of demand and the competitive supply are located. The subject site is located in the city of Cupertino, the county of Santa Clara, and the state of California. Cupertino is an affluent suburb in Santa Clara County. Because of the concentration of high‐technology, electronics‐oriented companies, Santa Clara county is referred to as Silicon Valley. Cupertino is part of the greater Silicon Valley economic base, which includes such cities as Palo Alto, Santa Clara, San Jose, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. The city of Cupertino boasts the international headquarters of Apple Incorporated, nearly 20 corporate headquarters, and 60 high-tech firms. The greater Silicon Valley region is technology-driven with major employers such as Cisco Systems, Adobe Systems, eBay, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Symantec, and Facebook. Companies in Silicon Valley have received more patents than any other technology region in the United States. The economy in Silicon Valley has historically been cyclical. The tech economy is currently in a robust period. Social media companies and internet companies are continuing to expand with no anticipation of contraction at this time. The subject’s market area can be defined by its Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): San Jose‐Sunnyvale‐Santa Clara, CA MSA. The MSA is the most standard definition used in comparative studies of metropolitan areas. The federal government defines an MSA as a large population nucleus, which, together with adjacent counties, has a higher degree of social integration. The following exhibit illustrates the market area. Market Area Definition Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 21 MAP OF MARKET AREA A primary source of economic and demographic statistics used in this analysis is the Complete Economic and Demographic Data Source published by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. – a well-regarded forecasting service based in Washington, D.C. Using a database containing more than 900 variables for each county in the nation, Woods & Poole employs a sophisticated regional model to forecast economic and demographic trends. Historical statistics are based on census data and information published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Projections are formulated by Woods & Poole, and all dollar amounts have been adjusted for inflation, thus reflecting real change. These data are summarized in the following table. Economic and Demographic Review Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 22 FIGURE 3-1 ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SUMMARY Average Annual Compounded Change 2000 2010 2016 2020 2000-10 2010-16 2016-20 Resident Population (Thousands) Santa Clara County 1,684.9 1,786.3 1,878.3 1,933.7 0.6 %0.8 %0.7 % San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 1,738.7 1,841.8 1,937.6 1,995.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 7,680.3 8,171.4 8,594.0 8,865.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 State of California 33,988.0 37,338.2 39,709.2 41,373.3 0.9 1.0 1.0 United States 282,162.4 309,330.2 327,418.3 340,554.3 0.9 1.0 1.0 Per-Capita Personal Income* Santa Clara County $66,871 $56,498 $62,457 $66,286 (1.7)1.7 1.5 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 65,904 55,800 61,636 65,374 (1.7)1.7 1.5 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 56,209 52,349 56,623 59,840 (0.7)1.3 1.4 State of California 40,184 41,211 44,119 46,554 0.3 1.1 1.4 United States 36,473 39,144 42,065 44,387 0.7 1.2 1.4 W&P Wealth Index Santa Clara County 179.8 144.1 148.4 149.1 (2.2)0.5 0.1 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 177.4 142.5 146.6 147.2 (2.2)0.5 0.1 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 150.7 133.2 134.2 134.4 (1.2)0.1 0.0 State of California 109.9 106.1 106.0 106.0 (0.3)(0.0)(0.0) United States 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Food and Beverage Sales (Millions)* Santa Clara County $2,868 $3,360 $3,752 $3,961 1.6 1.9 1.4 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 2,915 3,407 3,806 4,020 1.6 1.9 1.4 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 12,462 14,852 16,723 17,768 1.8 2.0 1.5 State of California 46,672 59,584 68,256 73,618 2.5 2.3 1.9 United States 368,842 447,396 509,009 548,160 1.9 2.2 1.9 Total Retail Sales (Millions)* Santa Clara County $26,654 $28,830 $33,119 $35,421 0.8 2.3 1.7 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA 27,142 29,210 33,562 35,902 0.7 2.3 1.7 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 112,965 117,365 134,638 144,098 0.4 2.3 1.7 State of California 446,496 490,207 569,419 616,143 0.9 2.5 2.0 United States 3,902,969 4,149,070 4,800,048 5,187,469 0.6 2.5 2.0 * Inflation Adjusted Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 23 The U.S. population has grown at an average annual compounded rate of 1.0% from 2010 through 2016. The county’s population has grown on par with the nation’s population, averaging 0.8% between 2010 and 2016. Per-capita personal income increased slightly, at 1.7% on average annually for the county between 2010 and 2016. Local wealth indexes have remained stable in recent years, registering a relatively high 148.4 level for the county in 2016. Food and beverage sales totaled $3,752 million in the county in 2016, versus $3,360 million in 2010; this reflects a 1.9% average annual change. From 2016 through 2020, the pace of growth is forecast to moderate to an annual average rate of 1.4%. The retail sales sector demonstrated an annual increase of 0.8% registered in the decade of 2000 to 2010, followed by an increase of 2.3% in the period 2010 to 2016. An increase of 1.7% average annual change is expected in county retail sales through 2020. The characteristics of an area's workforce provide an indication of the type and amount of transient visitation likely to be generated by local businesses. Sectors such as finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE); wholesale trade; and services produce a considerable number of visitors who are not particularly rate-sensitive. The government sector often generates transient room nights, but per-diem reimbursement allowances often limit the accommodations selection to budget and mid-priced lodging facilities. Contributions from manufacturing, construction, transportation, communications, and public utilities (TCPU) employers can also be important, depending on the company type. The following table sets forth the county workforce distribution by business sector in 2000, 2010, and 2016, as well as a forecast for 2020. Workforce Characteristics Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 24 FIGURE 3-2 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT (000S) Average Annual Compounded Change Percent Percent Percent Percent Industry 2000 of Total 2010 of Total 2016 of Total 2020 of Total Farm 5.3 0.4 %3.1 0.3 %2.8 0.2 %2.8 0.2 %(5.1)%(1.8)%(0.2)% Forestry, Fishing, Related Activities And Other 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.0 2.5 1.0 Mining 0.9 0.1 1.7 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 6.7 2.5 0.3 Utilities 2.5 0.2 1.6 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1 (4.7)(0.4)(0.4) Construction 58.8 4.6 44.1 4.0 45.6 3.7 47.4 3.6 (2.8)0.5 1.0 Manufacturing 263.3 20.7 156.7 14.1 162.7 13.3 162.8 12.5 (5.1)0.6 0.0 Total Trade 158.7 12.5 135.0 12.1 146.8 12.0 154.0 11.9 (1.6)1.4 1.2 Wholesale Trade 48.1 3.8 41.1 3.7 43.6 3.6 44.6 3.4 (1.6)1.0 0.6 Retail Trade 110.6 8.7 93.8 8.4 103.2 8.4 109.3 8.4 (1.6)1.6 1.5 Transportation And Warehousing 20.9 1.6 15.9 1.4 16.5 1.3 16.8 1.3 (2.7)0.6 0.5 Information 47.5 3.7 48.9 4.4 58.5 4.8 61.9 4.8 0.3 3.0 1.4 Finance And Insurance 34.9 2.7 42.9 3.9 50.4 4.1 54.5 4.2 2.1 2.7 2.0 Real Estate And Rental And Lease 42.7 3.4 57.6 5.2 61.5 5.0 64.5 5.0 3.0 1.1 1.2 Total Services 536.9 42.2 510.2 45.9 587.1 47.8 637.1 49.1 (0.5)2.4 2.1 Professional And Technical Services 175.7 13.8 157.6 14.2 177.0 14.4 188.2 14.5 (1.1)2.0 1.5 Management Of Companies And Enterprises 24.3 1.9 10.0 0.9 9.9 0.8 9.9 0.8 (8.5)(0.3)0.1 Administrative And Waste Services 84.8 6.7 65.9 5.9 76.8 6.3 83.2 6.4 (2.5)2.6 2.0 Educational Services 32.7 2.6 42.7 3.8 52.7 4.3 58.5 4.5 2.7 3.6 2.6 Health Care And Social Assistance 80.3 6.3 94.9 8.5 110.7 9.0 124.1 9.6 1.7 2.6 2.9 Arts, Entertainment, And Recreation 20.0 1.6 21.6 1.9 23.6 1.9 25.7 2.0 0.8 1.4 2.2 Accommodation And Food Services 68.5 5.4 68.3 6.1 78.7 6.4 85.0 6.5 (0.0)2.4 2.0 Other Services, Except Public Administration 50.5 4.0 49.3 4.4 57.7 4.7 62.5 4.8 (0.2)2.7 2.0 Total Government 99.4 7.8 92.5 8.3 90.4 7.4 91.2 7.0 (0.7)(0.4)0.2 Federal Civilian Government 12.1 1.0 10.7 1.0 10.4 0.9 10.8 0.8 (1.3)(0.3)0.8 Federal Military 3.7 0.3 3.2 0.3 3.2 0.3 3.3 0.3 (1.2)(0.1)0.1 State And Local Government 83.6 6.6 78.6 7.1 76.8 6.3 77.2 5.9 (0.6)(0.4)0.1 TOTAL 1,273.2 100.0 %1,111.8 100.0 %1,227.6 100.0 %1,298.3 100.0 %(1.3)%1.7 %1.4 % MSA 1,295.1 — 1,132.2 — 1,249.2 — 1,320.8 — (1.3)%1.7 %1.4 % U.S.165,371.0 — 173,626.7 — 188,004.1 — 198,343.5 — 0.8 1.3 1.3 Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2000-2010 2010-2016 2016-2020 Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 25 Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. reports that during the period from 2000 to 2010, total employment in the county contracted at an average annual rate of -1.3%. This trend was on par with the decline recorded by the MSA, but lagged the national average, reflecting the contracting nature of the local economy throughout most of that decade. However, the pace of total employment growth in the county rebounded to 1.7% on an annual average from 2010 to 2016, reflecting steady recovery followed by continued growth. Of the primary employment sectors, Total Services recorded the highest increase in number of employees during the period from 2010 to 2016. Of the various service sub- sectors, Professional And Technical Services and Health Care And Social Assistance were the largest employers. Forecasts developed by Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. anticipate that total employment in the county will change by 1.4% on average annually through 2020. The trend is on par with the forecast rate of change for the U.S. as a whole during the same period. The following table presents historical unemployment rates for the proposed subject hotel’s market area. FIGURE 3-3 UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS Year 2007 4.7 %4.8 %5.4 %4.6 % 2008 6.0 6.1 7.3 5.8 2009 10.6 10.7 11.2 9.3 2010 10.9 11.1 12.2 9.6 2011 9.7 9.9 11.7 8.9 2012 8.4 8.5 10.4 8.1 2013 6.9 7.0 8.9 7.4 2014 5.2 5.3 7.5 5.6 2015 4.2 4.3 6.2 5.0 2016 3.8 3.8 5.4 4.7 Recent Month - May 2016 3.4 %3.5 %5.5 %4.7 % 2017 2.9 3.0 4.7 4.3 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics County StateMSA * Letters shown next to data points (if any) reflect revised population controls and/or model re-estimation implemented by the BLS. U.S. Unemployment Statistics Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 26 The recession and financial crisis in 2007 and 2008, resulted in heightened unemployment rates from 2008 through 2010. Job growth resumed in late 2009, generating a decline in the unemployment rate every subsequent year through the present time. In May 2017, the national unemployment rate decline to 4.3%, the lowest level recorded since 2008; this positive trend reflects steady progress by the U.S. economy. The county unemployment rate declined to its lowest historical level, at 2.9% in May 2017. This can be attributed to the high concentration of corporate headquarters, technology companies, and various start‐up and service businesses in Silicon Valley, which has contributed to the region's economic strength. According to recent publications and development officials, the economy thrives and industries in Silicon Valley are expecting continued job growth. The subject site is located in Cupertino, a part of the Silicon Valley. The region lists numerous companies with 1,000 employees or more, including Apple, Adobe, Cisco, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and eBay, as well as major facilities for Flextronics, Hewlett‐ Packard, IBM, Hitachi, and Lockheed Martin. Providing additional context for understanding the nature of the regional economy, the following table presents a list of the major employers in the subject’s market. Apple’s new 175-acre campus located in Cupertino will be occupied by 12,000 company employees. The move reportedly started in April 2017. FIGURE 3-4 MAJOR EMPLOYERS Number of Rank Firm Employees 1 Apple, Inc,25,000 2 Google, Inc.20,000 3 County of Santa Clara 16,837 4 Stanford University 13,500 5 Kaiser Permanente Northern California 12,500 6 Cisco Systems, Inc.15,700 7 Tesla Motors Inc.10,000 8 Facebook Inc.9,385 9 Stanford Hospital & Clinics 7,700 10 Oracle Corp.8,000 Source: Silicon Valley Book of Lists 2016, Private Sector Employers Major Business and Industry Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 27 The following bullet points highlight major demand generators for this market: • Apple, Inc., is a multinational corporation headquartered in Cupertino. Apple designs, manufactures, and markets mobile communication and media devices, personal computers, and portable digital music players. The company's best‐ known hardware products include the Macintosh line of computers, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. Apple is the largest landowner in Cupertino. Apple will be completing a second campus, known as “Apple Park”, consisting of 175 total acres, inclusive of the 98 acres previously owned by Hewlett‐ Packard, and is defined by I‐280 to the south, Wolfe Road to the west, Homestead Road to the north, and North Tantau Avenue to the east. Construction broke ground in late 2013; structures include a 2.8‐million-square‐foot office structure, which will accommodate up to 12,000 employees, and include a 1,000‐seat auditorium, a fitness center, a research facility, and underground parking. In late April 2017, 12,000 company employees began moving into Apple Park. • Google Inc. is one of Santa Clara County’s principal employers and is headquartered in Mountain View, California. Google is a global technology leader focused on “improving the ways people connect with information” and specializes in Internet‐related services and products, which include search, cloud computing, software, and online advertising technologies. Google is planning a new transit-oriented development that includes between 6 and 8 million square feet of office/R&D space and retail/commercial amenities in San Jose, Diridon Caltrain station. The development would be three times the size of Apple Park and could support more than 20,000 new Downtown employees, significantly aiding the City's need for local jobs and supporting ridership on existing and new public transportation investments. • Cisco Systems is one of the largest private employer for the market. Cisco is a multinational corporation based in San Jose, California. Cisco designs, manufactures, and sells networking equipment. In January 2016, Cisco invested in VeloCloud, a software-defined WAN (SD-WAN) start-up with a cloud offering for configuring and optimizing branch office networks. Cisco contributed to VeloCloud's $27 million Series C round, led by March Capital Partners. Cisco is one of two strategic investors. In February 2017, Cisco premiered a cloud-based secure internet gateway to tackle cloud and mobile security risks. The offering, Cisco Umbrella, is tailored to provide safe internet access to users who do not use their corporate networks or VPNs to connect to remote data centers. • Education drives a significant portion of the economy in Santa Clara County. Stanford University, located near Palo Alto, is a leading private research Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 28 university that boasts more than 50 faculty, staff, and alumni that have won the Nobel Prize. The university is renowned for its bio‐technology research and was the first university to offer a graduate program in stem‐cell research. Additionally, Stanford is respected for its research in the high‐tech field and has very close ties with Silicon Valley. Santa Clara County and the surrounding Silicon Valley have a large concentration of high‐tech companies that have created a strong foundation for the area. In the past three years, the market has enjoyed considerable growth led by its strong economic base. The outlook for the market is optimistic with expected continued growth in the foreseeable future. Trends in occupied office space are typically among the most reliable indicators of lodging demand, as firms that occupy office space often exhibit a strong propensity to attract commercial visitors. Thus, trends that cause changes in vacancy rates or in the amount of occupied office space may have a proportional impact on commercial lodging demand and a less direct effect on meeting demand. The following table details office space statistics for the pertinent market area. Office Space Statistics Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 29 FIGURE 3-5 HISTORICAL OFFICE SPACE STATISTICS – SILICON VALLEY, Q1 2017 VS. Q1 2016 Source: Savills Studley Report Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 30 The greater San Jose‐Silicon Valley Office market comprises a total of 81.1 million square feet of office space. For the 1st Quarter of 2017, the overall market reported a vacancy rate of 15.7% and an average asking rent of $3.87 per square foot (PSF). Compared to the previous 1at Quarter of 2016, vacancy rates increased, while asking rent increased. The subject is located in the Sunnyvale/Cupertino submarket, which houses 13,829,000 square feet of office space, 7,857,000 of which is classified Class A office space. The submarket's Class A office space vacancy rate decreased year-over-year from 11.9% to 9.9%, from Q1 2016 to Q1 2017, respectively. The average asking lease rate for Class A office space also increased from $3.87 PSF to $4.63 PSF for the same period. With the exception of Palo Alto and Los Altos, the subject submarket’s average asking rate is above those of the broader market. The following table illustrates office space statistics for the Silicon Valley Office market. Note, the Sunnyvale/Cupertino submarket is among the top performing office space markets in the Silicon Valley. FIGURE 3-6 OFFICE SPACE STATISTICS – Q1 2017 Source: Savills Studley Report Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 31 The following table illustrates major office space leasing activity reported for the Silicon Valley Office market. FIGURE 3-7 MAJOR OFFICE LEASING ACTIVITY – Q1 2017 Trends in occupied research and development (R&D) space are important indicators of lodging demand. Firms that occupy R&D space in this particular submarket often exhibit a strong propensity to generate commercial demand for hotels. Thus, trends that cause changes in vacancy rates or in the amount of occupied R&D space may have a proportional impact on commercial lodging demand and a less direct effect on meeting demand. The following table illustrates statistics related to R&D space in the Silicon Valley, as defined by Cushman & Wakefield. Tenant Amazon.com 350,663 1111 Lockheed Martin Way Sunnyvale/Cupertino Gigamon, Inc 105,664 3300 Olcott St Santa Clara San Andreas Regional Center 73,610 6203 San Ignacio Ave South San Jose Panasonic 52,540 10900 N Tantau Ave Sunnyvale/Cupertino Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith 50,293 3075 Hansen Way Palo Alto Gigamon, Inc 45,896 3250 Olcott S Santa Clara White & Case 39,873 3000 El Camino Real North San Jose Moss Adams 39,770 635 Campbell Technology Pky Campbell/Los Gatos Viavi Solutions 36,715 6001 America Center Dr North San Jose MobileIron Inc 34,905 415 E Middlefield Rd Mountain View/Los Altos Source: Savills Studley Report Square Feet Address Market Area Research and Development Space Statistics Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 32 FIGURE 3-8 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SPACE STATISTICS – FIRST QUARTER 2017 Source: Cushman & Wakefield MarketBeat Silicon Valley Q1 2017 The Silicon Valley vacancy rate decreased slightly during the first quarter to 10.2%, down from the 10.3% rate from three months prior. This minimal decline came on the heels of four consecutive quarters of increasing vacancy. The average asking rent for R&D space in Silicon Valley closed the first quarter of 2017 at $2.09 per square foot (PSF) on a monthly triple net basis. This is up from the $1.97 PSF posted the same period last year. Palo Alto, Cupertino and Mountain View led the Valley’s asking rents at $5.32 PSF, $4.02 PSF and $3.89 PSF, respectively. The largest increase over the past year was the +16.1% jump recorded in Palo Alto. As a result of these positive trends, the outlook for Silicon Valley R&D marketplace is generally optimistic. Airport passenger counts are important indicators of lodging demand. Depending on the type of service provided by a particular airfield, a sizable percentage of arriving passengers may require hotel accommodations. Trends showing changes in passenger counts also reflect local business activity and the overall economic health of the area. Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) The Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport (SJC) is located at the north end of San Jose, near the intersections of three major freeways. SJC is the smallest of the three Bay Area airports offering scheduled service. Similar to Oakland International Airport, this airport attracts suburban residents who find SFO to be inconveniently distant from Airport Traffic Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 33 their homes. The North Concourse of Terminal B, the newest section of the airport, was completed in June 2010. Southwest Airlines is the primary tenant, along with Alaska Airlines, Horizon Air, Hainan Airlines, Lufthansa, and British Airways. Airlines located in Terminal A include American Airlines, United Airlines, JetBlue, and Air China. SJC hosts 14 airlines flying to and from international and domestic destinations. In the last two years, the airport has experienced significant growth. The international terminal has grown from three carriers to eight with flights to London, Frankfurt, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Vancouver, Cabo San Lucas and Guadalajara. Aero Mexico will be the newest international carrier to join San Jose in July 2017. With the dramatic growth, SJC needed to expand and improve its International Arrivals Building to better accommodate the surge in international passengers, adding an $8.2 million facility that opened in April 2017. The following table illustrates recent operating statistics for Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, which is the primary airport facility serving the subject hotel’s submarket. FIGURE 3-9 AIRPORT STATISTICS - NORMAN Y. MINETA SAN JOSE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Year 2007 10,658,385 —— 2008 9,717,717 (8.8)%(8.8)% 2009 8,321,750 (14.4)(11.6) 2010 8,246,064 (0.9)(8.2) 2011 8,357,384 1.3 (5.9) 2012 8,296,174 (0.7)(4.9) 2013 8,783,319 5.9 (3.2) 2014 9,385,212 6.9 (1.8) 2015 9,799,427 4.4 (1.0) 2016 10,796,725 10.2 0.1 Year-to-date, Apr 2016 3,147,700 —— 2017 3,577,336 13.6 %— *Annual average compounded percentage change from the previous year **Annual average compounded percentage change from first year of data Passenger Traffic Change*Change** Percent Source: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Percent Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 34 Resulting from the overall strength of the Bay Area’ economy, passenger traffic has increased since the 2009 economic crisis. The year-to-date data through April 2017 reflects the strength of the local and regional economy. 2016 was a record breaking year for Silicon Valley’s airport, with the addition of four new international destinations and several new domestic. According to airport officials, the growth is the direct result of the addition of several new international flights that were added in 2016. That includes the addition of Frankfurt on Lufthansa, London Heathrow on British Airways, Shanghai on Air China, and Vancouver on Air Canada. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) This four‐terminal airport is one of the busiest airports in the country, with extensive international and national service. The airport features ample amenities and services, which include various restaurants, shops, spa treatments, business centers, an aviation library, and a children's area. Major commercial airlines, such as United, American, Frontier, Southwest, and Alaska, service the airport. In 2016, Airport Officials announced SFO is developing a new Airport-owned and privately managed luxury hotel – the Grand Hyatt at SFO. Prominently located at the entrance to SFO, the 4.2-acre site is close to terminal buildings and parking garages, with excellent access to US Highway 101. AirTrain will provide direct access to the hotel. Construction is planned to start in Q3 2017 and to be completed by July 2019. The hotel will feature 351 soundproofed guest rooms (including 21 suites), a direct connectivity to AirTrain Station, 15,200 square feet of net meeting space (excluding pre-function areas), a 90-seat three-meal restaurant, two bars, a “Grab & go” market, In-room dining service, a Grand Club, a 2,700-square-foot fitness center, 215-space surface parking lot, and lush native landscaping and green areas. The following table illustrates recent operating statistics for the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), which is the second airport facility serving the subject hotel’s submarket. Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 35 FIGURE 3-10 AIRPORT STATISTICS – SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT San Francisco International Airport continues to experience robust growth, with increases in consecutive periods since 2007. Passenger traffic in 2016 represented a new all-time record for passenger traffic with a total of 53.1 million passengers traveling through San Francisco International Airport. The year-to-date data through April 2017 has increased by 3.4% over the same period last year. The growth is partly credited with new international airlines at the airport, including the addition of WOW Air, Fiji Airways and Volaris. Additionally, United Airlines launched three new international destinations from SFO in 2016, including first-ever nonstop flights to Tel Aviv and X’ian and Hangzhou in China. China Eastern Airlines also added the first nonstop service to Qingdao. With the new destinations, SFO now serves more cities in China than any other American airport, according to SFO officials. Oakland International Airport (OAK) Oakland International Airport is located eight miles south of Downtown Oakland in Alameda County, California, and is one of three international airports in the San Francisco Bay Area. Major commercial airlines that service the airport include Year 2007 35,790,835 —— 2008 37,402,541 4.5 %4.5 % 2009 37,453,634 0.1 2.3 2010 39,116,764 4.4 3.0 2011 40,810,141 4.3 3.3 2012 44,477,209 9.0 4.4 2013 45,011,764 1.2 3.9 2014 47,155,100 4.8 4.0 2015 50,067,094 6.2 4.3 2016 53,106,505 6.1 4.5 Year-to-date, Apr 2016 15,603,905 —— 2017 16,136,803 3.4 %— *Annual average compounded percentage change from the previous year **Annual average compounded percentage change from first year of data Percent Traffic Change* Passenger Percent Source: San Francisco International Airport Change** Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 36 Southwest, United, and Alaska Airlines, among others. The airport is a popular alternative to San Francisco International, thanks to the large population located in the East Bay that is more proximate to OAK than SFO. The following table illustrates recent operating statistics for the Oakland International Airport. FIGURE 3-11 AIRPORT STATISTICS – OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT The fluctuation in passenger statistics over the historical period can be attributed in part to the airport’s reliance on compression from SFO and the slow pace of recovery as flight schedules return to the airport. In 2016, the airport saw more than 12 million passengers, marking a 7.7 percent increase from 2015, in which 11.2 million passengers were served at the airport. The long‐term outlook for the airport is positive and is reflected in the year‐to‐date data through April 2017. The airport attributes it mostly to its surge in international flights. International operations increased by 73% compared to the same period last year. Southwest Airlines began its first international routes — to Los Cabos and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico — from Year 2007 14,417,645 —— 2008 11,474,456 (20.4)%(20.4)% 2009 9,505,281 (17.2)(18.8) 2010 9,542,333 0.4 (12.9) 2011 9,266,570 (2.9)(10.5) 2012 10,040,864 8.4 (7.0) 2013 9,742,887 (3.0)(6.3) 2014 10,336,788 6.1 (4.6) 2015 11,205,063 8.4 (3.1) 2016 12,070,967 7.7 (2.0) Year-to-date, Apr 2016 3,551,688 —— 2017 3,829,266 7.8 %— *Annual average compounded percentage change from the previous year **Annual average compounded percentage change from first year of data Source: Oakland International Airport Passenger Percent Percent Traffic Change*Change** Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 37 Oakland in February. The airport also saw new service launch from Norwegian Air from Oakland to Copenhagen and a route to London from British Airways. The market benefits from a variety of tourist and leisure attractions in the area. The peak season for tourism in this area is from May to September. During other times of the year, weekend demand comprises travelers passing through en route to other destinations, people visiting friends or relatives, and other similar weekend demand generators. Primary attractions in the area include the following: • The SAP Center at San Jose, previously known as the HP Pavilion, is a 20,000-seat entertainment complex in Downtown San Jose. The arena is used for the San Jose Sharks professional hockey team, pre-season National Basketball Association games, San Jose State University basketball games, and musical entertainment events. Furthermore, SAP Center hosted the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 2017 regional round of the NCAA men's basketball tournament. • Levi's Stadium, which opened in July of 2014 in Santa Clara, is home to the San Francisco 49ers of the National Football League. Built at a cost of $1.3 billion, the stadium has a capacity of 68,500 people (expandable to 75,000 for special events). The stadium, which was constructed with many environmentally sustainable components, is one of the largest buildings registered with the Green Building Council. Moreover, Levi's Stadium hosted Super Bowl 50 on February 7, 2016. • Santana Row is a multimillion-dollar, upscale, retail development featuring 563,000 square feet of retail space, 514 residential units, numerous restaurants, and a cinema complex in San Jose. The outdoor shopping mall offers a mix of high-end, brand-name shops and local boutiques, including stores such as Gucci, Kate Spade, H&M, and Ann Taylor LOFT, as well as several spas, salons, and the Hotel Valencia. • The Great Mall of the Bay Area, more commonly known as Great Mall, is a large indoor outlet shopping mall in Milpitas. It contains approximately 1.4 million square feet of gross leasable area. Various major retailers are represented in the mall, including Saks Fifth Avenue, Marshalls, Sears, and Last Call by Neiman Marcus, among many others. In addition, a Century Theatres multiplex offers 20 screens. Santa Clara County is undergoing major development projects that will increase and shift demand patterns in the coming years. • First announced in 2006, Apple is nearing completion of its new 175-acre “Apple Park” which started construction in late 2013. In April 2017, 12,000 of its employees began moving in. Facilities at Apple Park include a 2.8‐million-square‐foot office structure, a 120,000-square-foot underground assembly space with seating for Tourist Attractions Major Developments Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 38 1,000, a $74 million gym facility, a large lobby, restrooms and back-of-the-house facilities including a catering kitchen, and a 350-stall parking structure. • In June 2016, the Santa Clara city council voted to unanimously approve a $6.5 billion private development project for the area next to Levi’s Stadium. The mixed- use project will go on a 240-acre site that currently includes a golf course and dirt- bike track. Construction is expected to begin in late 2017, and rolled out in phases. A real estate firm involving Joe Montana was originally the lead on a development plan. They are no longer leading it; Related Companies, L.P., is the developer. However, there will potentially be a Montana led sports-themed restaurant included in the first phase. Phase 1 includes a minimum of 600,000 square feet of office, a 300-room hotel, and 50,000 square feet of retail on a parking lot across from the stadium. That will be followed by a “City Center” phase, which would add a minimum of 500,000 square feet of retail, plus offices and potentially apartments. • In October 2016, the Sunnyvale Town Center, a 36-acre mixed-use project, broke ground after it had previously stalled for a number of years. The property’s new owners STC Venture, a joint venture between Hunter Storm, Sares Regis Group of Northern California and J.P. Morgan Asset Management acquired the property from Wells Fargo last year. The plans include remodeling of all retail facilities projected to start by mid-2017; three residential buildings that will house 198 luxury apartment units by the middle of 2018. A theater, a hotel, a town square, and 248,200 square feet of retail space are also planned for the development. • The Main Street Cupertino project is one of the largest commercial projects recently built in Cupertino in years. The mixed-use project will include 130,500 square feet of retail, a 180-room Residence Inn, and 120 apartments. Apple Inc. leased two office buildings, totaling 260,000 square feet at Main Street Cupertino. • Another major project for Cupertino is the Vallco Shopping Mall redevelopment. The large-scale redevelopment intends to convert a 1970s-era mall into 2 million square feet of office space, 640,000 square feet of retail, approximately 400 residential units and a 339-room hotel, along with a 30-acre green roof. Developer and site owner Sand Hill Property will integrate the current entertainment options like the ice rink, movie theater and bowling alley. The project is currently on hold pending Cupertino voters’ approval. This section discussed a wide variety of economic indicators for the pertinent market area. Following a severe recession that lasted until early 2010, the Silicon Valley economy began to expand and has remained strong. Positive office space absorption, improving unemployment rates, and favorable hotel demand statistics indicate that the area is experiencing strong economic growth. Silicon Valley’s strong economic growth in the past three years is supported by expanding company headquarters, strong commercial leasing activity, a surge in airport passenger traffic, and declining Conclusion Market Area Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 39 unemployment rates. The near- term and long‐term outlook for the market is optimistic because of its diverse and highly educated labor force and the presence of a healthy and rapidly expanding technology industry. Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 40 4. Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis In the lodging industry, supply is measured by the number of guestrooms available, and demand is measured by the number of rooms occupied; the net effect of supply and demand toward equilibrium results in a prevailing price, or average rate. The purpose of this section is to investigate current supply and demand trends as indicated by the current competitive market, resulting in a forecast of market-wide occupancy. We investigated the demand for transient accommodations and identified the various generators of visitation operating within the local market. The greater Silicon Valley area comprises of cities such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Santa Clara, San Jose, Mountain View, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, and Sunnyvale. The greater Silicon Valley region is technology driven, with major employers such as Cisco Systems, Adobe Systems, Apple, eBay, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Symantec, and Facebook. The outlook for corporate hotel demand is optimistic, with expected continued growth in the foreseeable future. Meeting and group demand is highly dependent on the health of the corporate sector. Although the San Jose and Santa Clara Convention Centers provide a significant amount of lodging demand for hotels in San Jose, area hoteliers reported that compression from citywide conventions rarely affect the hotels in the vicinity of the subject site. Leisure lodging demand to the subject market tends to be price-sensitive, as the market area does not offer significant leisure attractions. Most leisure demand occurs on weekends and during holiday periods relating to family trips. Some leisure demand is generated by events at the SAP Center and Levi’s Stadium. The regional competitive lodging facilities in the market were evaluated to determine their market position with respect to the proposed subject hotel. We performed physical inspections of the competitive lodging facilities along with select management interviews. The subject site is located in Cupertino, California. The greater Silicon Valley market area includes full-service, select-service, extended-stay, or limited-service properties that rely primarily on commercial demand generated by the area’s high concentration of office and R&D space. The greater Silicon Valley market surrounding the subject site offers approximately 95 hotels, spanning 15,200 rooms, which are categorized by STR chain scale as upper-midscale, upscale, upper-upscale, and luxury. Of this set, the stock of newer hotels built in the past decade accounts for approximately 3,000 rooms, or 19.7% of the total, while the bulk of hotels in Silicon Valley were built in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. It is evident that a large amount of hotels in Silicon Valley are dated and do not offer the modern accommodations desired by sophisticated Hotel Market Area Overview Competitive Overview Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 41 commercial travelers today. After a hotel development hiatus since the dot. com bust in the early 2000’s, hotel developers are once again being attracted to the Silicon Valley market because of the very strong operating performance of area hotels. Occupancy and average rate levels now support feasible hotel development. Newer upscale hotels that cater to demanding tech-industry guests looking for high-quality services and amenities began entering the market in the past five years and new ones will continue to open over the next few years. The following tables illustrate a select set of hotels in the Silicon Valley by STR chain scale. We included upper-midscale, upscale, upper- upscale, and luxury; excluded midscale and economy. Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 42 FIGURE 4-1 COMPETITIVE HOTEL FACILITIES BY CHAIN SCALE Luxury Fairmont San Jose Hotel Los Gatos Hotel Valencia Santana Row Toll House Hotel Upper Upscale Class Biltmore Hotel & Suites Hilton San Jose Sheraton Hotel San Jose Bristol Luxury Hotel Cupertino Inn Los Gatos Lodge Joie De Vivre Avatar Hotel Westin Sainte Claire Embassy Suites Milpitas Silicon ValleyPruneYard Plaza Hotel Juniper Hotel Curio Collection The Plaza Suites Marriott San Jose Hyatt Santa Clara Embassy Suites Santa Clara Marriott Santa Clara Hilton Santa Clara Upscale Class Hyatt House Santa Clara Doubletree San Jose Hilton Garden Inn Milpitas Courtyard Campbell aloft Hotel Cupertino Courtyard San Jose Airport Staybridge Suites Milpitas DoubleTree Pruneyard Plaza Courtyard Cupertino Staybridge Suites San Jose Residence Inn Milpitas Residence Inn San Jose CampbellHilton Garden Inn Cupertino San Jose Airport Hotel Crowne Plaza San Jose Larkspur Landing Campbell Residence Inn Main Street Four Points San Jose Downtown Courtyard Milpitas Hyatt House (U/C) Hyatt Place San Jose Downtown aloft San Jose Cupertino AC Hotel Residence Inn San Jose South Homewood Suites San Jose Airport Courtyard San Jose North Hyatt House San Jose Silicon Valley Four Points San Jose Silicon Valley Upper Midscale Class Holiday Inn Express Hampton Inn Suites San Jose Best Western Plus Brookside Inn TownePlace Suites Campbell Holiday Inn Express & Stes Holiday Inn Express San Jose Milpitas Inn Larkspur Landing Campbell Mariani`s Inn Clarion Inn Silicon Valley Hampton Inn Milpitas Woodcrest Hotel San Jose Airport Garden Hotel Larkspur Landing Milpitas TownePlace Suites Santa ClaraAdlon Hotel Beverly Heritage Hotel Comfort Suites San Jose Airport TownePlace Suites Milpitas Holiday Inn San Jose Airport Silicon Valley Hotel Fairfield Inn & Suites San Jose Comfort Inn San Jose Alura Inn Holiday Inn Express & Suites Airport Best Western Plus Lanai Garden Santa Clara Inn Arena Hotel Valley Park Hotel TownePlace Suites San Jose Cupertino Los GatosSanta Clara San Jose Milpitas Campbell Cupertino Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 43 FIGURE 4-2 COMPETITIVE HOTEL FACILITIES BY CHAIN SCALE Luxury Rosewood Sand Hill Garden Court Hotel Stanford Park Hotel Hotel Keen Four Seasons Silicon Valley Dinah`s Garden Hotel Creekside Inn The Clement Upper Upscale Class Menlo Park Inn Sheraton Hotel Palo Alto Joie De Vivre Hotel Avante Grand Hotel Biltmore Hotel & Suites Stanford Guest House Westin Palo Alto Hotel Strata JDV Wild Palms Hotel Joie De Vivre Avatar Hotel Joie De Vivre The Epiphany Domain Hotel The Plaza Suites Closed Hyatt Rickeys Sheraton Hyatt Santa Clara The Zen Hotel Embassy Suites Santa Clara Marriott Santa Clara Hilton Santa Clara Upscale Class Residence Inn Palo Alto Crowne Plaza Palo Alto Residence Inn Los Altos Hilton Garden Inn Residence Inn SV I Hyatt House Santa Clara Stanford Terrace Inn Courtyard Los Altos Camino Inn & Suites Residence Inn SV II Homewood Suites Palo Alto Hilton Garden Inn Palo Alto Crestview Hotel Staybridge Suites Homewood Suites Palo Alto Residence Inn Mountain View Larkspur Landing Sunnyvale Hotel Azure aloft Sunnyvale Courtyard Sunnyvale Upper Midscale Class Best Western Plus Riviera Comfort Inn Palo Alto Hotel Zico Best Western Plus Holiday Inn Express Red Cottage Inn & Suites Hotel Aria Comfort Inn Sunnyvale Holiday Inn Express & Stes Best Western Plus Maple Tree Inn Mariani`s Inn Hampton Inn Suites TownePlace Suites Woodcrest Hotel Corporate Inn Sunnyvale TownePlace Suites Santa Clara Country Inn & Suites Santa ClaraMenlo Park Palo Alto Los Altos Mountain View Sunnyvale Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 44 From our research, we conclude that the major national hotel brands are widely represented in the market. Some brands are better represented than others, such as Marriott with 25 hotels (including all Starwood hotels prior to the merger); Hilton with 14 hotels (two Hiltons, two DoubleTrees, two Embassy Suites, three Hilton Garden Inns, one Curio Collection, three Hampton Inn, and two Homewood Suites); and Intercontinental, with approximately 8 hotels each ranging from full-service to select- service hotels; Hyatt has a presence with the Hyatt Santa Clara, two Hyatt Houses and a Hyatt Place, while the luxury segment has the least representation: Fairmont and Four Seasons. It is also important to note that independent hotels comprise a large category of non-branded hotels. Hotel Valencia, Toll House, Hotel Los Gatos, and Stanford Park Hotel are among the highest rated independent hotels in the Silicon Valley. Smith Travel Research (STR) is an independent research firm that compiles and publishes data on the lodging industry, routinely used by typical hotel buyers. HLI has ordered and analyzed an STR Trend Report of historical supply and demand data for the subject property and its competitors. This information is presented in the following table, along with the market-wide occupancy, average rate, and rooms revenue per available room (RevPAR). RevPAR is calculated by multiplying occupancy by average rate and provides an indication of how well rooms revenue is being maximized. These data are compiled by Smith Travel Research (STR), an independent research firm that compiles and publishes data on the lodging industry. The hotels in this set are in the upscale, upper-upscale, and luxury hotel segments located in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Los Altos, Campbell, San Jose, and Los Gatos. The proposed subject hotel will be constructed and operated to meet the standards of an upscale or upper-upscale hotel. The select set of hotels takes into account the proximity of the hotel clusters to area demand generators, which the subject will accommodate in the future. Submarkets such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Milpitas have not been included due to the distance to Cupertino’s generators of hotel demand. Furthermore, the select hotels in the STR set are the newer hotels or those well-established that have undergone recent extensive renovations, ranging in size between 72 to 248 rooms and averaging 160 rooms in size. Historical Supply and Demand Data Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 45 FIGURE 4-3 HOTELS IN THE STR COMPETITIVE SET The following table illustrates the market trends for the upscale, upper-upscale, and luxury hotel segments, as defined in the previous paragraph. Hotels Included in Sample Courtyard Palo Alto Los Altos 191 Nov 2002 Nov 2002 Residence Inn Palo Alto Los Altos 156 Dec 2001 Dec 2001 Residence Inn Palo Alto Menlo Park 138 May 2015 May 2015 Residence Inn Palo Alto Mountain View 144 Oct 1985 Oct 1985 Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View 160 Oct 1999 Oct 1999 Joie De Vivre Hotel Avante 91 Apr 2000 Jun 1985 Larkspur Landing Sunnyvale 126 Dec 1998 Dec 1998 Residence Inn Sunnyvale Silicon Valley I 231 Oct 1983 Oct 1983 Residence Inn Sunnyvale Silicon Valley II 248 May 1985 May 1985 aloft Sunnyvale 85 Mar 2015 Mar 2015 The Domain Hotel 136 Dec 2014 Sep 1986 Joie De Vivre Wild Palms Hotel 205 Mar 2000 Jun 1977 Courtyard Sunnyvale Mountain View 145 Oct 2014 Oct 2014 Sheraton Hotel Sunnyvale 173 Mar 1999 Jun 1980 Crowne Plaza Palo Alto 195 Oct 1998 Jun 1962 Homewood Suites Palo Alto 138 Mar 2015 Mar 2015 Hilton Garden Inn Palo Alto 174 Mar 2015 Mar 2015 Courtyard San Jose Campbell 162 Feb 2010 Feb 2010 DoubleTree Campbell Pruneyard Plaza Hotel 169 Jul 2013 Jun 1989 Residence Inn San Jose Campbell 80 Mar 1986 Mar 1986 Larkspur Landing Campbell 117 Mar 2000 Mar 2000 aloft Hotel Cupertino 123 Jan 2013 Jan 2013 Residence Inn San Jose Cupertino 180 Jan 1900 U/C Hilton Garden Inn Cupertino 164 Sep 1998 Sep 1998 Cupertino Inn 128 Jun 1987 Jun 1987 Curio Collection Juniper Hotel Cupertino 224 Jun 2015 Jul 2002 Courtyard San Jose Cupertino 149 May 1988 May 1988 Toll House Hotel 115 Jun 1983 Jun 1983 Hotel Los Gatos 72 Apr 2011 Nov 2002 Springhill Suites San Jose Airport 145 Jun 2015 Jun 2015 Residence Inn San Jose Airport 176 Jun 2015 Jun 2015 AC Hotels by Marriott San Jose Downtown 210 Jan 2017 Jan 2017 Westin San Jose 171 Jul 2015 Jun 1926 Hyatt Place San Jose Downtown 236 Feb 2012 Sep 1974 Valencia Group Hotel Valencia Santana Row 215 Jul 2003 Jul 2003 aloft San Jose Cupertino 81 Aug 2016 May 2001 Total 5,653 Year Opened Number Year of Rooms Affiliated Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 46 FIGURE 4-4 HISTORICAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TRENDS Year Average Daily Room Count Available Room Nights Change Occupied Room Nights Change Occupancy Average Daily Rate Change RevPAR Change 2011 4,098 1,495,831 — 1,114,330 — 74.5 %$143.15 — $106.64 — 2012 4,095 1,494,830 (0.1)%1,169,455 4.9 %78.2 154.54 8.0 %120.90 13.4 % 2013 4,219 1,539,845 3.0 1,225,558 4.8 79.6 168.99 9.4 134.50 11.2 2014 4,258 1,554,255 0.9 1,250,889 2.1 80.5 189.12 11.9 152.21 13.2 2015 4,985 1,819,646 17.1 1,437,910 15.0 79.0 216.50 14.5 171.08 12.4 2016 5,240 1,912,438 5.1 1,524,952 6.1 79.7 225.30 4.1 179.65 5.0 5.0 %6.5 %9.5 %11.0 % Year-to-Date Through May 2016 5,231 789,908 — 614,598 — 77.8 %$229.42 — $178.51 — 2017 5,473 826,423 4.6 %659,300 7.3 %79.8 232.32 1.3 %185.34 3.8 % Average Annual Compounded Change: 2011-2016 Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 47 The subject market experienced a notable increase in supply in the past four years, adding 1,334 rooms to the market with the opening of the aloft Hotel Cupertino in January 2013; the Courtyard Sunnyvale Mountain View in October 2014; the aloft Sunnyvale, Homewood Suites Palo Alto, and Hilton Garden Inn Palo Alto in March 2015; the Residence Inn Palo Alto Menlo Park in May 2015; the Springhill Suites and Residence Inn San Jose Airport in June 2015; and the AC Hotels by Marriott San Jose Downtown in January 2015. Also three notable conversions occurred in the past two years: Juniper Hotel conversion of the Cypress Inn in June 2015, the Westin Saint Clare from its independent status in July 2015, and the aloft San Jose from the Moorpark Hotel in August 2016. The market has quickly absorbed this supply increase and continued to register high occupancy levels in the 80% range for the past four years. In the year-to-date period through May 2017, occupied room nights continue to grow at robust rates, increasing by 7.3% compared to the same period last year. Market-wide average rate registered a double-digit increase in 2014 and 2015, but began moderating in 2016 and the year-to- date period through May 2017. With sustained levels of peak lodging demand in the market, area hoteliers will continue to evidence the sustained favorable operating performance of the market, with further increases in occupancy and average rate, albeit, at moderate growth rates. Hoteliers in the market reported that the continued increase in average rate is attributed to the growth in mid-week commercial lodging demand from corporate business travelers. Monthly occupancy and average rate trends are presented in the following tables. Seasonality Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 48 FIGURE 4-5 MONTHLY OCCUPANCY TRENDS Month 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 January 66.2 %66.0 %67.4 %70.5 %70.7 %69.1 %69.1 %72.6 % February 72.6 76.9 78.6 81.1 82.4 77.2 77.2 81.4 March 75.5 76.8 75.1 78.2 78.5 80.2 80.2 83.6 April 72.9 77.5 82.6 79.6 78.0 79.7 79.7 76.2 May 78.2 82.6 83.1 83.7 77.5 82.8 82.8 85.1 June 84.2 87.9 87.6 87.5 83.6 87.3 — — July 75.9 81.8 85.7 86.5 83.4 83.2 — — August 80.9 84.5 86.1 87.5 86.0 84.7 — — September 77.5 82.2 83.9 86.6 84.3 84.2 — — October 80.3 85.0 87.8 84.5 84.4 84.8 — — November 73.1 74.6 73.7 76.0 76.4 77.9 — — December 56.8 63.1 63.8 65.1 62.5 65.9 — — Annual Occupancy 74.5 %78.2 %79.6 %80.5 %79.0 %79.7 %— — Year-to-Date Through May 73.1 %75.9 %77.3 %78.5 %77.4 %77.8 %77.8 %79.8 % Year-to-Date Through May Source: STR Global Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 49 FIGURE 4-6 MONTHLY AVERAGE RATE TRENDS Month 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 January $139.66 $155.47 $165.48 $183.69 $205.97 $229.69 $229.69 $224.33 February 142.25 157.01 169.69 187.75 214.51 248.02 248.02 235.46 March 143.46 154.33 166.71 186.44 217.13 227.81 227.81 238.61 April 140.32 153.98 169.10 185.25 214.54 219.46 219.46 220.98 May 143.11 154.45 166.40 182.71 212.34 224.39 224.39 240.06 June 144.13 155.45 170.06 190.84 226.10 229.79 —— July 138.75 152.65 167.38 189.57 215.81 217.16 —— August 144.83 152.14 167.64 188.99 217.73 226.84 —— September 144.96 154.05 172.80 198.45 224.83 228.74 —— October 148.93 162.33 178.48 201.44 227.64 237.41 —— November 146.77 155.61 170.40 190.84 217.17 220.60 —— December 138.41 145.21 160.94 179.67 194.77 189.83 —— Annual Average Rate $143.15 $154.54 $168.99 $189.12 $216.50 $225.30 — — Year-to-Date Through May $141.83 $154.99 $167.49 $185.13 $213.10 $229.42 $229.42 $232.32 Year-to-Date Through May Source: STR Global Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 50 The illustrated monthly occupancy and average rates patterns reflect important seasonal characteristics. The tech industry in Silicon Valley supports occupancy levels for many months in excess of 80%. Business travel is strong Monday through Thursday, with many operators reporting sold-out nights on Tuesday and Wednesday. Due to the transient commercial nature of accommodated demand, market-wide occupancy is strong throughout the year from February to October and declines during the holiday months. Average rate follows a similar pattern. We have reviewed these trends in developing our forthcoming forecast of market-wide demand. A review of the trends in occupancy, average rate, and RevPAR per day of the week over the past fiscal year provides some insight into the impact that the current economic conditions have had on the competitive lodging market. The data, as provided by Smith Travel Research, are illustrated in the following table. Patterns of Demand Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 51 FIGURE 4-7 OCCUPANCY, AVERAGE RATE AND REVPAR BY DAY OF WEEK In most markets, business travel, including individual commercial travelers and corporate groups, is the predominant source of demand on Monday through Thursday nights. Leisure travelers and non-business-related groups generate a majority of demand on Friday and Saturday nights. As evidenced in the preceding table, market- wide occupancy levels registered peak levels between Monday and Thursday nights, which suggests the strong presence of commercial lodging demand and corporate travel in the market. In contrast, the weekend periods clearly register a lower overall Occupancy Month Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Total Month Jun - 16 75.1 %93.9 %97.0 %92.5 %82.3 %83.9 %86.3 %87.3 % Jul - 16 72.0 81.2 87.5 90.1 85.5 81.4 87.1 83.2 Aug - 16 67.9 85.4 92.7 90.6 81.7 81.7 89.0 84.7 Sep - 16 70.1 85.7 95.1 94.8 81.0 78.3 86.4 84.2 Oct - 16 67.9 87.1 98.5 98.0 85.7 77.3 83.3 84.8 Nov - 16 62.9 80.2 84.9 87.7 83.3 71.2 71.2 77.9 Dec - 16 57.4 72.2 74.0 71.4 66.4 58.9 63.1 65.9 Jan - 17 55.9 75.3 87.2 87.8 76.8 60.7 64.0 72.6 Feb - 17 66.7 87.1 95.7 95.2 84.3 69.6 71.1 81.4 Mar - 17 67.0 91.6 97.3 95.7 85.8 73.3 73.6 83.6 Apr - 17 57.7 82.8 92.6 90.8 76.6 69.8 69.6 76.2 May - 17 73.6 85.1 94.7 94.8 85.6 77.1 80.2 85.1 Average 65.9 %83.9 %91.3 %91.0 %81.1 %73.5 %76.9 %80.5 % Average Rate Month Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Total Month Jun - 16 $212.79 $265.69 $276.84 $267.14 $223.04 $172.51 $166.33 $229.79 Jul - 16 199.01 250.98 267.08 262.99 225.73 170.71 165.54 217.16 Aug - 16 210.54 254.56 264.47 259.10 225.59 170.58 168.81 226.84 Sep - 16 205.63 263.02 277.86 275.09 234.31 172.67 165.59 228.74 Oct - 16 216.51 270.55 287.64 283.98 241.97 178.07 168.75 237.41 Nov - 16 194.40 245.32 262.40 263.17 217.89 159.59 152.23 220.60 Dec - 16 175.61 216.93 226.55 221.71 195.90 147.73 144.99 189.83 Jan - 17 197.12 256.81 266.94 258.53 220.16 159.77 152.89 224.33 Feb - 17 212.57 266.80 285.19 282.48 234.41 164.32 159.45 235.46 Mar - 17 219.21 274.11 290.07 284.91 234.98 167.65 162.42 238.61 Apr - 17 196.21 257.28 274.67 270.61 219.45 157.56 150.19 220.98 May - 17 208.86 267.39 284.67 281.68 240.59 175.89 166.30 240.06 Average $204.62 $258.71 $273.05 $269.19 $226.68 $167.03 $160.87 $226.63 Source: Smith Travel Research Source: Smith Travel Research Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 52 occupancy level, which also evidences the market’s challenges in filling hotel rooms during these periods with group and leisure lodging demand. The hotels that will compete directly with the subject hotel are in the upscale, upper- upscale, and luxury segment class and were chosen based on an evaluation of the occupancy, rate structure, market orientation, chain affiliation, location, facilities, amenities, reputation, and quality of each area hotel, as well as the comments of management representatives. We have also taken into account the proposed subject property’s upscale standards and amenities and the higher rated demand it will cater to. The following table summarizes the important characteristics of the competitors. This information was compiled from personal interviews, inspections, lodging directories, and our in-house library of data. SUPPLY Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 53 FIGURE 4-8 DIRECT COMPETITORS SUMMARY OF FACILITIES, AMENITIES, AND OPERATING DATA Name Juniper Hotel Aloft Cupertino Courtyard Cupertino Hilton Garden Inn Cupertino Aloft San Jose Hotel Valencia Cupertino Inn Location Cupertino, CA Cupertino, CA Cupertino, CA Cupertino, CA San Jose, CA San Jose, CA Cupertino, CA Affilation Hilton Marriott Marriott Hilton Marriott Independent Independent Rooms 224 123 149 164 81 212 128 Meeting Rooms 6 3 2 3 1 4 3 Meeting Space (SF)4,897 1,101 1,248 1,650 1,100 3,804 1,720 (SF) Per Room 21.9 9.0 8.4 10.1 13.6 17.9 13.4 Std Guestroom Size 350 325 350 350 335 350 325 One Bdrm Suite Size 600 500 500 500 380 500 450 F&B Outlets Parkview Kitchen & Spirits, Room Service Grab-and-Go café "re:fuel" and w xyz bar The Bistro Garden Grille & Bar "re:fuel" and w xyz bar Oveja Negra, Terrace, Vbar, Cielo Room service Amenities & Services Business Center, concierge Services, an exercise room An outdoor pool, an exercise room, and a lobby workstations An outdoor pool, an indoor whirlpool, an exercise room, a business center, a market pantry, a guest laundry facility An outdoor pool and whirlpool, an exercise room, a business center, a guest laundry facility An outdoor pool and whirlpool, a fitness center, a business center, free WiFi An outdoor pool and whirlpool, an exercise room, a spa, and a business center An outdoor pool, a business center, happy house, free WiFi, complimentary breakfast Location Types Suburban Suburban Suburban Suburban Suburban Suburban Suburban Parking Valet and Self Park Self Park Self Park Self Park Self Park Valet and Self Park Self Park 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Occupancy Estimate 80%80%82%83%80%82%81% Average Rate Estimate $260 $230 $215 $210 $190 $305 $200 Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia The following map illustrates the locations of the proposed subject hotel and its future competitors. MAP OF COMPETITION The following photo gallery of competitive hotels were captured on the internet. Unless specified otherwise, we do not make claims or comments regarding the physical condition of the properties. Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT SAN JOSE CUPERTINO Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia CUPERTINO INN Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia HILTON GARDEN INN CUPERTINO Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia JUNIPER HOTEL CUPERTINO Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia ALOFT CUPERTINO Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia ALOFT SAN JOSE Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia HOTEL VALENCIA SAN JOSE Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 62 It is important to consider any new hotels that may have an impact on the overall market. According to the local planning office, and our research and inspection (as applicable), new supply expected to be competitive within the subject property's competitive submarket is outlined in the following table. Note that new supply has been weighted to account for varying competitive levels. FIGURE 4-9 NEW SUPPLY The Hyatt House at the proposed Vallco Shopping Center is located two miles away from the subject property within the city of Cupertino. Plans for the proposed hotel include a full-service restaurant and bar, 2,480 square feet of meeting space, and 156 parking spots. Construction started in December 2016 and the hotel is anticipated to open in December 2018. However, because of its extended-stay orientation, this property has been weighted 75% competitive. The Residence Inn Cupertino will be opening in Main Street Cupertino in August 2017. The Main Street project consists of 130,500 square feet of retail space, a five-level garage, 260,000 square feet of office space, and a residential building. Due to its extended-stay orientation, the proposed hotel was weighted at 75% competitive with the subject. The Cupertino Village Boutique Hotel located at 10765-10801 North Wolfe Road entails the demolition of two retail buildings (approximately 13,500 square feet) located in the Cupertino Village Shopping Center to develop a new full-service boutique hotel with 185 rooms. Due to the unapproved and speculative nature of the project, the proposed hotel was weighted at 50% competitive with the subject. The Cupertino Hotel (Goodyear Tires Site) located at 10391 North De Anza Boulevard entails the demolition of an existing 8,500 square feet commercial building (Goodyear Tires) to develop a five-story, 156-room hotel with underground parking, lounge, and Total Proposed Property Number of Competitive Level Estimated Opening Date Developer Development Stage Hyatt House (Vallco)148 75 %111 December 1, 2018 Cupertino Property Development LLC Broke Ground Residence Inn Cupertino 180 75 135 August 1, 2017 SandHill Properties Under Construction Kimco Cupertino Village Hotel 185 50 93 June 1, 2019 Kimco Realty Early Development Cupertino Hotel (Goodyear Tires)156 50 78 September 1, 2019 De Anza Properties Early Development AC Hotel Sunnyvale (T2)187 25 47 June 1, 2018 T2 Development Under Construction RI Silicon Valley I and II Expansion 188 25 47 July 1, 2019 DLR group and Marriott Approved T2 Dual Brand (150 AC and 200 Autograph) 350 25 88 May 1, 2020 T2 Development Approved Marina Plaza Hotel Cupertino 122 0 0 May 1, 2021 Dahlin Approved Totals/Averages 1,691 773 Weighted Room Count Supply Changes Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 63 conference facilities. Due to the unapproved and speculative nature of the project, the proposed hotel was weighted at 50% competitive with the subject. The AC Hotel Sunnyvale located at 725 S. Fair Oaks Ave in Sunnyvale is currently under construction and expected to be completed in June 2018. This lifestyle hotel will offer 187 rooms, 150 parking stalls in a subterranean parking structure, local flora and landscape; and energy efficient features high efficiency HVAC system, use of natural lighting, energy-efficient light bulbs, motion-sensored and timed light switches in all offices, low flow toilets, water faucets, as well as water efficient commercial dishwashers and laundry washing machines. The hotel is being developed by T2 Development. Due to the distance from the subject, the proposed hotel was weighted at 25% competitive with the subject. The Residence Inn Silicon Valley I and Residence Inn Silicon Valley II are both undergoing an expansion of guestrooms. Redevelopment of the Residence Inn Silicon Valley I, a 232-room hotel, entails a partial demolition of 32 rooms and construction of a new 7-story hotel with 111 guest rooms (79 net new rooms) including 32 structured parking spaces and associated site modifications. Residence Inn Silicon Valley II entails a redevelopment resulting in a total 357 guest rooms (originally 248 rooms). The new 7- story building will contain 133 rooms (24 of the 248 existing guest rooms are to be demolished, resulting in a net increase of 109 rooms). Note Residence Inn Silicon Valley I is owned by DLP Group, while Residence Inn Silicon Valley II is owned by Marriott. Due to the distance from the subject and extended-stay orientation, the proposed additional units were weighted at 25% competitive with the subject. T2 Development has been approved for another project in Sunnyvale, which entails two new hotels: one 8-story, 200-room Autograph Collection and one 8-story, 150-room AC Hotel with a four-level, above grade parking structure. Due to the distance from the subject and speculative nature, the proposed hotels were weighted at 25% competitive with the subject. Several other proposed hotel projects are in various stages of development in Sunnyvale; however, due to the speculative nature of the developments and market orientation, we have not considered these projects into our analysis. The Marina Plaza Development in Cupertino entails the redevelopment of commercial space into a mixed-use development including 23,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, a 122-room hotel, and 188 residential units. City officials confirmed that while the development and uses have been approved, no actual plans for the hotel have been submitted; therefore, we have not considered this project into our analysis. Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 64 While we have taken reasonable steps to investigate proposed hotel projects and their status, because of the nature of real estate development, it is impossible to determine with certainty every hotel that will be opened in the future, or what their marketing strategies and effect in the market will be. Depending on the outcome of current and future projects, the future operating potential of the subject property may be positively or negatively affected. Future improvement in market conditions will raise the risk of increased competition. Our forthcoming forecast of stabilized occupancy and average rate is intended to reflect such risk. We have identified various properties that are competitive to some degree with the subject property. We have also investigated potential increases in competitive supply in the Cupertino and Sunnyvale submarkets. The proposed subject will operate in a dynamic market of exclusive upscale hotels and is expected to command above average rates due to its new condition upon opening. Next, we will present our forecast for demand change, using the historical supply data presented as a starting point. For the purpose of demand analysis, the select Silicon Valley market is divided into individual segments based on the nature of travel. Based on our fieldwork, area analysis, and knowledge of the local lodging market, we estimate the 2016 distribution of accommodated-room-night demand as follows. FIGURE 4-10 ACCOMMODATED ROOM-NIGHT DEMAND The market’s demand mix comprises commercial demand, with this segment representing the majority of traveling guests at approximately 75% of the overall accommodated room nights in this Silicon Valley market. The remaining portion comprises meeting and group at 15%, with the final portion leisure in nature, reflecting 10%. Similar to the market, it is anticipated that the subject market segmentation will be heavily weighted toward commercial demand. The subject will also accommodate meeting and group demand in a similar manner relative to the market. Furthermore, its Marketwide Market Segment Commercial 1,143,811 75 % Meeting and Group 228,762 15 Leisure 152,508 10 Total 1,525,081 100 % Accommodate d Demand Percentage of Total Supply Conclusion Demand Analysis Using Market Segmentation Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 65 location proximate to Santana Row, Levi’s Stadium, SAP Center and other leisure attractions relative to its competitors will allow it to capture leisure demand. Using the distribution of accommodated hotel demand as a starting point, we will analyze the characteristics of each market segment in an effort to determine future trends in room-night demand. Commercial demand consists mainly of individual businesspeople passing through the subject market or visiting area businesses, in addition to high-volume corporate accounts generated by local firms. Brand loyalty (particularly frequent-traveler programs), as well as location and convenience with respect to businesses and amenities, influence lodging choices in this segment. Companies typically designate hotels as “preferred” accommodations in return for more favorable rates, which are discounted in proportion to the number of room nights produced by a commercial client. Commercial demand is strongest Monday through Thursday nights, declines significantly on Friday and Saturday, and increases somewhat on Sunday night. It is relatively constant throughout the year, with marginal declines in late December and during other holiday periods. Commercial travel is relatively constant throughout the year, although some declines are noticeable in late December and during other holiday periods. Corporate travel in the market is generated by a variety of corporation, including Apple, Google, Cisco, Oracle, Symantec, Agilent, Panasonic, and other local firms. As many of these high-tech companies relocate and expand operations (Apple in Cupertino), demand growth should continue. In the near term, the outlook for commercial demand is positive as technology companies continue to hire, expand office space, and increase travel budgets. The long term outlook is also positive as tech companies establish a strong demand base in the market. The meeting and group market includes meetings, seminars, conventions, trade association shows, and similar gatherings of ten or more people. Peak convention demand typically occurs in the spring and fall. Although there are numerous classifications within the meeting and group segment, the primary categories considered in this analysis are corporate groups, associations, and SMERFE (social, military, ethnic, religious, fraternal, and educational) groups. Corporate groups typically meet during the business week, most commonly in the spring and fall months. These groups tend to be the most profitable for hotels, as they typically pay higher rates and usually generate ancillary revenues including food and beverage and/or banquet revenue. SMERFE groups are typically price-sensitive and tend to meet on weekends and during the summer months or holiday season, when greater discounts are usually available; these groups generate limited ancillary revenues. Association demand is Commercial Segment Meeting and Group Segment Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 66 generally divided on a geographical basis, with national, regional, and state associations representing the most common sources. Professional associations and/or those supported by members' employers often meet on weekdays, while other associations prefer to hold events on weekends. The profile and revenue potential of associations varies depending on the group and the purpose of the meeting or event. Factors related to group demand considered in our development of growth rates for this segment include the presence of numerous local corporate entities; the high concentration of high-tech firms, such as Apple and Google, is expected to continue to bolster group room-block needs locally. Additionally, a small portion of meeting and group demand in the market is associated with SMERF groups, family reunions, and other more price-sensitive groups during the weekends and summer months. We expect modest growth to occur in the near term in this segment and a more stable long term outlook as the economy stabilizes. Leisure demand consists of individuals and families spending time in an area or passing through en route to other destinations. Travel purposes include sightseeing, recreation, or visiting friends and relatives. Leisure demand also includes room nights booked through Internet sites such as Expedia, Hotels.com, and Priceline; however, leisure may not be the purpose of the stay. This demand may also include business travelers and group and convention attendees who use these channels to take advantage of any discounts that may be available on these sites. Leisure demand is strongest Friday and Saturday nights, and all week during holiday periods and the summer months. These peak periods represent the inverse of commercial visitation trends, underscoring the stabilizing effect of capturing weekend and summer tourist travel. Future leisure demand is related to the overall economic health of the region and the nation. Trends showing changes in state and regional unemployment and disposable personal income correlate strongly with leisure travel levels. The market does not offer significant leisure attractions. Most leisure demand occurs on weekends and during holiday periods relative to family trips. Some demand is generated by events at the SAP Center, Santa Row, and Levi’s Stadium. We expect the leisure segment to grow modestly going forward. The purpose of segmenting the lodging market is to define each major type of demand, identify customer characteristics, and estimate future growth trends. Starting with an analysis of the local area, three segments were defined as representing the subject property’s lodging market. Various types of economic and demographic data were then evaluated to determine their propensity to reflect changes in hotel demand. Based on this procedure, we forecast the following annual growth rates for each demand segment. Leisure Segment Conclusion Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 67 FIGURE 4-11 AVERAGE ANNUAL COMPOUNDED MARKET SEGMENT GROWTH RATES Marketwide demand growth in 2017 is expected to follow a trend similar to that reflected in the year-to-date data through May 2017 (7.3% compared to the same period last year) moderating in the last few months of the year. Demand is expected to continue to increase at a more moderate pace going forward. As new supply enters the market and occupancy reaches capacity, growth rates are expected to moderate to stabilization. Induced demand represents the additional room nights that are expected to be attracted to the market following the introduction of a new demand generator. Situations that can result in induced demand include the opening of a new manufacturing plant, the expansion of a convention center, or the addition of a new hotel with a distinct chain affiliation or unique facilities. The following table summarizes our estimate of induced demand. FIGURE 4-12 INDUCED DEMAND CALCULATION The near term opening of the Hyatt House, Residence Inn Cupertino, and AC Hotel Sunnyvale are expected to induce lodging demand to the market. Furthermore, in 2019, when the remaining high-quality hotel projects in this study start to open its doors, induced demand will more than double its size. The opening of high-quality, upscale properties will add new product that is either affiliated with a strong national chain or Annual Growth Rate Market Segment Commercial 5.0 %2.0 %1.0 %2.0 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % Meeting and Group 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Leisure 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Base Demand Growth 4.8 %2.0 %1.0 %1.8 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % 2021 202320172018201920202022 Induced Room Nights Market Segment Commercial 2,483 6,686 13,162 14,739 14,739 Meeting and Group 497 1,379 4,387 4,479 4,479 Leisure 331 881 2,527 2,619 2,619 Total 3,311 8,946 20,076 21,837 21,837 2020 2021201720182019 Induced Demand Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 68 uniquely position as an independent property. The Marriott and Hyatt reservation systems and loyalty programs are expected to induce additional demand in all segments, while independent hotels will be uniquely positioned to cater to sophisticated tech travelers, as well as leisure and meeting and group demand. Accordingly, we have incorporated 21,800 annual room nights (rounded) into our analysis. Based upon a review of the market dynamics in the subject property’s competitive environment, we have forecast growth rates for each market segment. Using the calculated potential demand for the market, we have determined market-wide accommodated demand based on the inherent limitations of demand fluctuations and other factors in the market area. The following table details our projection of lodging demand growth for the subject market, including the total number of occupied room nights and any residual unaccommodated demand in the market. Accommodated Demand and Market- wide Occupancy Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 69 FIGURE 4-13 ACCOMMODATED DEMAND 1,201,001 1,225,021 1,237,272 1,262,017 1,274,637 1,274,637 1,274,637 2,483 6,686 13,162 14,739 14,739 14,739 14,739 1,203,485 1,231,707 1,250,434 1,276,756 1,289,376 1,289,376 1,289,376 Growth Rate 5.2 %2.3 %1.5 %2.1 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % 240,200 245,004 247,454 249,929 252,428 252,428 252,428 497 1,379 4,387 4,479 4,479 4,479 4,479 240,697 246,383 251,842 254,408 256,907 256,907 256,907 5.2 %2.4 %2.2 %1.0 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % 157,083 160,225 161,827 163,446 165,080 165,080 165,080 331 881 2,527 2,619 2,619 2,619 2,619 157,414 161,106 164,354 166,064 167,699 167,699 167,699 3.2 %2.3 %2.0 %1.0 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % Base Demand 1,598,285 1,630,251 1,646,553 1,675,392 1,692,145 1,692,145 1,692,145 Induced Demand 3,311 8,946 20,076 21,837 21,837 21,837 21,837 Total Demand 1,601,596 1,639,196 1,666,630 1,697,229 1,713,983 1,713,983 1,713,983 Overall Demand Growth 3.2 %2.5 %2.9 %2.3 %1.0 %0.0 %0.0 % Market Mix 75.1 %75.1 %75.0 %75.2 %75.2 %75.2 %75.2 % 15.0 15.0 15.1 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 5,251 5,253 5,272 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240 Westport Cupertino ¹59 175 175 175 175 Hyatt House (Vallco)²10 111 111 111 111 111 Residence Inn Cupertino ³57 135 135 135 135 135 135 Kimco Cupertino Village Hotel 4 54 93 93 93 93 Cupertino Hotel (Goodyear Tires)5 26 78 78 78 78 AC Hotel Sunnyvale (T2)6 28 47 47 47 47 47 RI Silicon Valley I and II Expansion 7 24 47 47 47 47 T2 Dual Brand (150 AC and 200 Autograph) 8 59 88 88 88 Available Rooms per Night 1,937,440 1,980,100 2,090,883 2,184,154 2,194,654 2,194,654 2,194,654 Nights per Year 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 Total Supply 5,308 5,425 5,728 5,984 6,013 6,013 6,013 Rooms Supply Growth 1.3 %2.2 %5.6 %4.5 %0.5 %0.0 %0.0 % Marketwide Occupancy 81.2 %81.4 %79.3 %77.7 %78.1 %78.1 %78.1 % ¹ Opening in September 2019 of the 100% competitive, 175-room Westport Cupertino ² Opening in December 2018 of the 75% competitive, 148-room Hyatt House (Vallco) ³ Opening in August 2017 of the 75% competitive, 180-room Residence Inn Cupertino 4 Opening in June 2019 of the 50% competitive, 185-room Kimco Cupertino Village Hotel 5 Opening in September 2019 of the 50% competitive, 156-room Cupertino Hotel (Goodyear Tires) 6 Opening in June 2018 of the 25% competitive, 187-room AC Hotel Sunnyvale (T2) 7 Opening in July 2019 of the 25% competitive, 188-room RI Silicon Valley I and II Expansion 8 Opening in May 2020 of the 25% competitive, 350-room T2 Dual Brand (150 AC and 200 Autograph) Totals Proposed Hotels Commercial Meeting and Group Leisure Existing Hotel Supply Growth Rate Leisure Base Demand Base Demand Induced Demand Growth Rate Total Demand Induced Demand Total Demand Total Demand Meeting and Group Base Demand Induced Demand Commercial 2020 2021 2022 2023201720182019 Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 70 The subject market is currently operating at peak occupancy levels, enabling operators to continue to increase rate. Market-wide occupancy has been forecast to remain at historically high levels in 2017, and then decrease as proposed new supply enters the market and as average rate increases deter more price-sensitive hotel guests. As a result, occupancy is forecast to stabilize at 78.1%, a level we consider sustainable given historical trends for this market, increases in hotel supply, and our discussion with market participants. We conducted a search for recent transactions of hotels that bear comparison to the subject property in one or more key areas in the Silicon Valley and greater Bay Area. We also considered factors such as operational and physical similarities to the subject property, including brand affiliation and revenue-generating characteristics. The following recent transactions involved hotels that have some degree of geographic similitude with the subject property. Hotel Sale Transaction Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 71 FIGURE 4-14 RECENT HOTEL SALE TRANSACTIONS – BAY AREA Date Property Name City Units Price ($)$/Units Cap Rate Buyer Seller Jun-17 Hyatt House Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill 142 45,000,000.00 316,901 Shidler Group Hersha Jun-17 Westin San Jose San Jose 171 64,000,000.00 374,269 Aju Hotels & Resorts Wolff Urban Development Jun-17 Sutter Hotel Oakland 102 11,795,000.00 115,637 Hawkins Way Capital Romeet Raj Singh; Pritin Mukherjee Jun-17 Leslie Hotel San Francisco 68 17,750,000.00 261,029 Dipak Patel & Kalpana Patel 2011 Trust, Manishh GajiwalaCoral Partners LLC Jun-17 Hyatt Place San Jose 239 62,860,666.70 263,015 Blackstone Ultima Hospitality May-17 Oakland Marriott City Center (Leasehold)Oakland 482 143,000,000.00 296,680 Gaw Capital Apollo Global RE, DiNapoli Cap Prtnrs May-17 Albion Hotel San Francisco 20 2,270,000.00 113,500 Patel Family Enrique A Rodriguez May-17 Sheraton Pleasanton Pleasanton 170 33,850,000.00 199,118 Washington RE Holdings Kapoor Enterprises, JP Sethi Enterprises May-17 Best Western Inn Rohnert Park 145 16,600,000.00 114,483 Steve H Marsh; Kim D Marsh Sarti Enterprises Apr-17 Hilton San Jose San Jose 353 92,500,000.00 262,040 8.1%Han's Holdings Group DiNapoli Cap Prtnrs Mar-17 Kenwood Inn & Spa Kenwood 30 14,602,500.00 486,750 Aristotle Cap Management McCaw Group Feb-17 Intercontinental Mark Hopkins San Francisco 383 173,000,000.00 451,697 General Nice Woodridge Capital, Oaktree Dec-16 Ritz Carlton San Francisco San Francisco 336 290,900,000.00 865,774 Carey Watermark 2 Thayer Lodging, Cascade Investments, Brookfield AM, MetLife Dec-16 Purple Orchid Inn Resort & Spa Alameda 10 4,850,000.00 485,000 Rhiannon Eddy Kaushik Banerjee Dec-16 Red Coach Motor Lodge San Francisco 45 13,800,500.00 306,678 The Ehmer Group Grace Chang, Jane Chang Living Trust Dec-16 Sonesta Silicon Valley Milpitas 236 46,000,000.00 194,915 Hospitality Props Trust Fillmore Cap Prtnrs Dec-16 Inn at Saratoga Saratoga 45 13,500,000.00 300,000 Osheanic Capital LLC Inn of Saratoga Inc Dec-16 St Regis Hotel (1FL-20FL)San Francisco 260 173,714,285.70 668,132 QIA Marriott Nov-16 Sheraton Fisherman’s Wharf San Francisco 531 200,000,000.00 376,648 Pyramid Hotel Group, Acron AG Blackstone Oct-16 Courtyard By Marriott Sunnyvale 145 75,000,000.00 517,241 5.8%Hersha T2 Development Sep-16 Marriott - San Francisco Airport (Leasehold)San Mateo 476 132,000,000.00 277,311 Oracle Tarsadia Hotels Sep-16 Ritz-Carlton Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay 261 171,769,493.70 658,121 Anbang Insurance Group Blackstone, Strategic H&R (Blackstone) Sep-16 Four Seasons Silicon Valley East Palo Alto 200 182,198,568.00 910,993 Anbang Insurance Group Blackstone, Strategic H&R (Blackstone) Sep-16 Westin St Francis San Francisco 1,195 1,017,531,015.20 851,490 Anbang Insurance Group Strategic H&R (Blackstone), Blackstone Jul-16 Great Highway Inn San Francisco 54 15,343,500.00 284,139 Rajen Shah Doris M Surian; Romano M Surian Jul-16 Marriott Downtown San Jose 510 153,945,666.70 301,854 6.2%Carey Watermark 2 CBRE Global Investors Jun-16 Hilton Garden Inn San Leandro San Leandro 119 26,550,000.00 223,109 8.1%Arbor Lodging Partners Joseph Lee, Kwang Hyun Do Apr-16 The Vintage Estate Yountville 192 197,000,000.00 1,026,042 Brookfield Prop Prtnrs Sandbach Family, Michael P Egan, Ghilotti Family Mar-16 Wine Country Inn Napa 29 13,785,500.00 475,362 RSBA & Assocs Carson Finical Mar-16 Marriott Pleasanton Pleasanton 242 51,300,000.00 211,983 7.1%Pyramid Hotel Group, Western & Southern Life Wheelock Street Capital Mar-16 Santa Clara Inn San Jose 30 8,600,000.00 286,667 Allied Housing Inc Naveeda Khan Feb-16 Fairmont Sonoma Mission Inn & Spa Boyes Hot Springs 226 84,348,000.00 373,221 Carey Watermark 1 Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Feb-16 Club Quarters San Francisco San Francisco 346 126,047,000.00 364,298 8.5%Blackstone Masterworks Development Feb-16 Marriott Courtyard Oakland 162 43,800,000.00 270,370 7.2%Gaw Capital CIM Group Jan-16 Hilton Garden Inn Mountain View 160 74,000,000.00 462,500 7.0%Shashi Group Summit Hospitality Dec-15 Four Seasons Silicon Valley East Palo Alto 200 183,783,926.40 918,920 Strategic H&R (Blackstone), Blackstone Strategic Hotels & Resorts Dec-15 Sofitel Redwood City 421 154,500,000.00 366,983 CBRE Global Investors Prudential RE Investors, Lodging Cap Prtnrs Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 72 5. Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project The quality of a lodging facility's physical improvements has a direct influence on marketability, attainable occupancy, and average room rate. The design and functionality of the structure can also affect operating efficiency and overall profitability. The proposed hotel will be part of Westport Cupertino mixed-use development. It is important to discuss the uses within Westport Cupertino. Westport Cupertino Mixed-Use Development will include a 7-story, 280,000 square feet Class A office building, a 6-story upscale to upper-upscale hotel (subject hotel), three 5- story residential buildings containing a total of 270 residential units, a theatre, a transit center, and a 3-story, below-grade parking. Westport Cupertino will serve as a vibrant mixed-use gateway district providing affordable and senior housing, extensive community benefits, significant mobility options, and a retail, entertainment, and civic destination for the greater Cupertino community. HOTEL RENDERINGS – VIEW FROM THE NORTH Project Overview Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 73 HOTEL RENDERINGS – VIEW FROM THE SOUTH Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 74 HOTEL PLAZA RENDERINGS Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 75 HOTEL LOBBY AND PASEO RENDERINGS Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 76 AERIAL VIEW RENDERINGS Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 77 MIXED-USE LAYOUT PLAN Based on information provided by KT Urban, the following table summarizes the facilities that are expected to be available at Westport Cupertino. Redevelopment of an existing shopping center on 8.1 acres site, to provide mixed-use urban village with the following structures: • Office Building: 7-Stories; 280,000 SF. Potential "Incubator Office Space" at Level 1. • Hotel Building: 6-Stories; 116,850 SF; 170 hotel units ("keys"); w/ 4,000 SF Conference Facility / Community Space. Project Program Summary Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 78 • Residential-Retail Building A: 5-stories; 127,820 SF residential; 115 units; w/ 13,875 SF of ground-level retail. 12,135 SF garage w/ 10 grade-level parking spaces. • Residential-Retail Building B: 5-stories; 89,815 SF residential; 85 units; w/ 15,700 SF of ground-level retail. • Residential-Retail Building C: 5-stories; 58,060 SF residential; 70 units; w/ 12,425 SF of ground-level retail. • Theater at Hotel: 27,500 SF; 5 theaters. • Transit Center: 1000 SF of covered vertical circulation to pedestrian bridge to center of Highway 85, and vehicular roundabout for unloading zone and local bus stop. Designated parking spaces in garage below. • Below-Grade Parking Garage: 3-stories; 720,000 SF; 1,470 parking spaces, w/ 416 bicycle spaces. Westport Cupertino Mixed-Use Gateway is envisioned as a vibrant mixed-use site deserving of its gateway location in the City of Cupertino. The following section describes the proposed land uses. Retail/Commercial – 69,500 square feet in total. This includes approximately 42,000 square feet constructed on the ground floor. Uses include retail, restaurants, and neighborhood services. It also includes a 27,500 sf. five-screen boutique movie theater. The retail space will be internally connected through a network of pedestrian and open spaces linking the office, hotel and residential uses. The goal is to create an experience- oriented destination for residential, shopping, dining, and entertainment in a “gateway” environment, as envisioned in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Community Center – This 4,000 square feet. publicly-accessible community center will be available for civic and community functions such as De Anza Community College lectures and education activities, conferences, school events, community celebrations, and a variety of social gatherings (e.g. weddings, parties, club events, non-profit functions). Open Space - Generously landscaped common areas including plazas, outdoor seating (for restaurants and public use), and public art. Transit Center – The transit center will provide the basis for a future connection for rapid transit along State Route 85, 50 onsite parking stalls, and a shuttle drop-off/pick- Westport Cupertino - Description of Land Uses Description of the Proposed Mixed-Use Project Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 79 up area, thus removing commuter buses and improving pedestrian and bike safety along Mary Avenue. Underground Parking – All parking (1,480 spaces) will be located on three underground levels, thereby reserving the ground floor as a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly urban space. Offsite Mobility Improvements – Roadway and intersections improvements on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue, as well as improving pedestrian and bikeway access along Mary Avenue, providing a variety of city-wide bikeway improvements, contributing to the City’s Safe Routes to School, contributing to a future City-sponsored shuttle program, and other mobility initiatives. Class A Office - Today’s technology companies require work environments that allow them to compete globally. Most existing office inventory in Cupertino consists of Class B and C product that meets neither employers’ needs nor the growing demand for local companies to expand. The project’s new Class A, 280,000 square feet office building will allow the City to diversify its corporate base and attract a headquarters’ user in the western area of the City. Flagship Hotel - A flagship upscale hotel integrated with the boutique movie theater and community center, will include a rooftop restaurant/lounge and modern amenities. Residential - The opportunity to provide housing near jobs will help reduce local trips and improve the jobs-housing imbalance in the City of Cupertino. Located in three 5- story buildings, the residential component will consist of market rate as well as affordable housing for seniors. The affordable housing commitment is 20% of a total of 270 residential units, thereby providing greater affordability rates than what is required by the City’s BMR Housing Program. Westport Cupertino will offer a modern, functional layout conducive to, and supportive of an upscale hotel operation. We assume that the buildings will be fully occupied and operational on the assumed hotel opening dates and will meet all local building codes and upscale standards. The following chapter will discuss our recommendations for the hotel component, which takes into account the previously discussed complementary facilities which will enhance the hotel operation. Conclusion Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 80 6. Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation Due to their relatively high RevPAR and efficient operating profile, upscale select-service and extended-stay hotels in Silicon Valley generate the higher return on invested capital which is why we are seeing so many of these hotels being developed today, while full- service hotels offering a higher level of services and amenities such as a full-service restaurant, fully-equipped meeting space, catering services, room-service, and extensive guestroom amenities typically have a higher development cost, and have a higher operational overhead. Our interviews with local hotel operators revealed that stabilized occupancy performance is driving average rate growth. Mid-week business, which is generated by local tech companies, is almost entirely negotiated in advance with the major account. Group business is mostly small corporate groups, and food and beverage business during the mid-week is not strong. The subject site is located in the northeastern corner of the intersection formed by Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. A variety of full-service restaurants, bars, and retail outlets are within driving distance from the subject site. Across Stevens Creek Boulevard is De Anza College. The subject site benefits from easy access to/from Interstate 280 and Highway 85. Based on interviews with local hotel operators, hotel developers, city officials, and our local knowledge of the area, the subject site is considered an “A” location with potential for development of a high-end to upscale mixed-use development, including an upscale hotel. The following table illustrates the brands within the select-service, boutique lifestyle, and micro-unit classes including number and type of rooms, meeting-space square footage, and other required services and amenities. Hotel Product Overview Product Selection Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 81 FIGURE 6-1 PRODUCT SELECTION Branded Select-service Boutique Lifestyle Full-Service Boutique Lifestyle Select Micro-unit Hotels Brands Courtyard by Marriott Hyatt Centric Unbound by Hyatt Pod Hotels Hilton Garden Inn Curio by Hilton Tapestry by Hilton Yotel Hotels SpringHill Suites 1 Hotels by Starwood Canopy by Hilton Tommie Hotels by Commune Indigo Hotels Autograph Collection by Marriott AC Hotels by Marriott Moxy by Marriott Hyatt Place B Hotels Even Hotels by IHG citizenM Four Points Sheraton Registry by Wyndham Tryp by Wyndham Cambria Suites Kimpton Hotels by IHG Joie de Vivre by Commune Virgin Hotels Ace Hotels Radisson Red Aloft Hotels by Starwood Proper Hotels Thompson Hotels by Commune Unscripted by Dream Hotel Group The Edition by Marriott Nobu Hotels Size 150 to 175 Rooms 175 to 250 Rooms 125 to 190 Rooms 75 to 125 Rooms Average size 250 SF to 500 SF Average size 350 SF to 600 SF Average size 250 SF to 400 SF Average size 160 SF to 300 SF F&B Offering Paid Breakfast Full-service Restaurant Beverage Oriented Food Operation Large Lounging Area Lunch or Dinner Service Full-service Bar Full-service Bar Full-service Bar Limited Catering On-site Catering On-site Catering May be Leased Operation Hosted Receptioon May be Leased Operation May be Leased Operation Services and Amenities Complimentary Wi-Fi Complimentary or Paid Wi-Fi Complimentary Wi-Fi Complimentary or Paid Wi-Fi Full-service Business Center Lobby Workstations Lobby Workstations Connectivity Fitness Room Fitness Room Fitness Room Fitness Room Pool Meeting Faciliites Two Board Rooms and Junior Ballroom Fully Equiped Meeting Rooms Fully Equiped Meeting Rooms Minimal Meeting Rooms (Example:2,500 square feet for 150 (Example: 4,500 square feet for 150 (Example: 3,500 square feet for 150 (Example: 1,500 square feet for 150 rooms, or 20 square feet/room)rooms, or 37.5 square feet/room)rooms, or 23.5 square feet/room)rooms, or 10 square feet/room) Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 82 Select-service properties offer limited degrees of services and amenities compared to full-service hotels. While most select-service properties do not contain extensive meeting, recreational and retail facilities, there is diversity when it comes to the offering of food and beverage. Within the select-service category, there are brands that offer retail food and beverage service, and others that do not. A large part of the reason for the popularity of owning and operating select-service properties is the relative ease of operations. Without the extensive array of facilities, services, and amenities, select- service hotels have fewer departments to manage, and are more efficient to operate. It is generally accepted that select-service hotels are more profitable than full-services hotels. This category comprised an estimated 89% of the total hotel projects under construction according to the December 2016 U.S. Hotel Pipeline report from STR. The Boutique Lifestyle class is an emerging segment in the hotel industry, with many already well-established hotels in urban and suburban locations. Driven by the major hotel chains, they borrow the best elements of a traditional boutique hotel – small, intimate and modern – and integrate the advantages only a chain can offer, like loyalty program, consistency, and economies of scale. As a result, boutique lifestyle hotels are generally more affordable and accessible than a traditional boutique hotel and full- service hotel. Boutique Lifestyle hotels are tailored per location, giving travelers a distinct taste of the city's culture and cuisine. They also provide flexibility for both casual and business travelers, though an intimate and cosmopolitan atmosphere is felt regardless of the location or reason for travel, making them feel welcome and truly part of each city's culture. Each hotel is a unique product of its environment, all the while retaining an upscale residential feel. Micro-unit hotels are challenging the status quo of travel. Micro-unit hotels have smaller rooms, are generally newer built, contain lots of tech, trendy lighting, and larger lounge- style public areas that serve as “work/eat/play” space. Micro-unit hotels provide “affordable luxury” to travelers with a lobby that is designed like a living room and rooms that are small but with wall-to-wall windows, soft XL size beds, rain showers and free WIFI. These hotels move away from traditional elements like a concierge or room service, and guests can check themselves in via kiosks in the lobby and get food and drinks from a canteen. Some brands offer only very small TechEd-out, pod-like, capsule units that serve the absolute basics of overnight rest. Some even have shared bathroom space. Our research of the hotel market concludes that demand for upscale hotels with high- quality services and amenities exists. The subject location is not ideal for a group hotel (over 200 rooms) due to its distance from the Santa Clara and San Jose convention centers; and according to representatives at the Juniper Hotel (a Curio by Hilton), 90% to 95% of corporate business travels from within a 10-mile radius. Typically, tech- Product Recommendation Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 83 industry guests seeking boutique lifestyle/affordable luxury brands. The weekend guest is visiting from LA, staying for pre- or post-convention events, stopping en route to Napa Valley, or visiting family in area. Because of the high concentration of extended-stay hotels in close proximity to area demand generators along El Camino Real and two under construction in the City of Cupertino, the subject’s location is not ideal for an extended- stay hotel. Operators and hotel investors agreed that the subject site has potential for a hotel ranging from 145 to 195 rooms in size that will accommodate mid-week business from local demand generators and weekend visitors. Because food and beverage is typically unprofitable for area hotels and food options abound in the neighborhood and proposed mixed-use development, our product recommendation focuses on boutique lifestyle hotels with a heavy emphasis on beverage service and independent upscale hotels with a leased restaurant operation. Based upon our field research and our knowledge of area hotels and demand generators, our recommendation regarding the most appropriate lodging product for your site is for a 180-room boutique lifestyle hotel with a focus on beverage, a “B&F” (Beverage & Food) lounge area offering cocktails, beverages and small plates (not three meals a day – evenings only). A boutique lifestyle select brand, commercially oriented hotel that will appeal to tech-industry guests seeking a lifestyle brand, as well as weekend visitors looking for a modern, upscale hotel option near leisure attractions. Our product recommendation includes an open multimedia lobby area with comfortable sofas featuring free Wi-Fi, a healthy crafted small-plate breakfast buffet (paid offering), and a 24-hour market pantry. The meeting space offering should feature a minimum of three medium-sized rooms (combined for a large ballroom) for business, social or family events, and two media scape boardrooms featuring workspace on demand. The guestroom product should at the very least meet upper-upscale standards, with plush bedding, simplistic design with no art work, a workspace, free high-speed Internet access, and high-quality bath amenities. Guestroom bathroom shower stalls with high pressure rain showers instead of tub and shower combination, and suites containing a separate soaking tub. The fitness area should feature a room fully equipped with state-of-the-art equipment. The outdoor areas may feature local fauna landscape and a comfortable seating area with an outdoor fire pit. It is our understanding that five boutique theatres, including a TED-talk style theatre will be located on the underground levels of the hotel. This concept will not only enhance the overall guest travel experience, but also provide an additional neighborhood amenity. A roof-top bar open to hotel guests, as well as local businesses and community patrons will benefit from the breath-taking views of the valley. It is our understanding the hotel will be part of an upscale mixed-use development containing retail commercial space and office space, as well as an upscale residential component. The hotel can be complemented by a ground-floor leased restaurant and bar operation within the mixed- use development. Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 84 The optimal brand will depend on several factors, including availability, brand restrictions, market positioning, and market strategy. We recommend exploring further with select brand managers in the Boutique Lifestyle Select category and conducting an RFP process based on the recommendations set out in this study. Our brand and facility recommendation considers the following factors: • The proposed site is in a suburban hotel location with excellent highway and roadway frontage and good visibility/accessibility. • Existing surrounding uses of the site include multi-family residential, office, and a restaurant. • The proposed development of the overall site includes multi-family residences, office, condos, and supportive retail uses. • The shortage of quality upscale boutique lifestyle hotel developments with community space in Cupertino. • The hotel will be developed by an experienced commercial developer and managed by a reputable, experienced third-party hotel operator under a major national brand affiliation. • Demand to the overall market is commercial-driven, resulting in strong weekday performance. According to local operators, weekend business can often be challenging, particularly for hotels in more suburban locations such as Sunnyvale/Cupertino. Meeting and group business is driven by the local tech companies and the Santa Clara convention center. Some social meeting and group business is present from weddings, reunions, etc. • The hotel’s design, brand, and operations will be of a caliber that will drive demand to the property. The hotel will have distinctive characteristics and food and beverage offerings that will also be positioned to enhance the overall neighborhood and appeal to the city’s residents, as roof-top bars and open lounge/community space options are limited in the immediate neighborhood. • Given the subject site's suburban highway location and considering the average square footage of comparable properties in the area, micro-units would not be the most optimum size for this market. Every operator/management company/hotel company has different design and facility visions. While we have recommended a baseline level of hotel facilities, the space Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 85 program for the subject site would depend on the branding, operator, and developer. Our recommendations, therefore, are general in nature, correlating the overall consistencies among the options that were considered based on the location and likely positioning of the project. The following table illustrates our product recommendation, including type of product, number and type of rooms, meeting-space square footage, and other required amenities. FIGURE 6-2 PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION Proposed Boutique Lifestyle Select Hotel Total Number of Rooms Standard King Double Queen King Suite Hospitality Suite Guestroom Mix 180 110 45 20 5 4,500 25.0 Units Guestrooms 180 65,700 Meeting Rooms Up to 5 Rooms 4,500 Fitness Room/Pool 2,100 Business Area 200 Lounge and Food and Beverage 4,500 Public Space and Lobby 32,000 109,000 Theater at Hotel 27,500 Parking 215 68,800 205,300 Total Building Area with Theatre and Parking (Estimate) Room Mix Indoor Meeting Space (SF) Meeting Space per Room Description Underground parking 5 boutique theatres including a TED-Talk style theatre Total Square Feet Simplistic design; consistent FF&E in all rooms; modern lighting; closet featuring exposed design; work desk; technology package; complimentary WiFi; at least three room type options. Simplistic design with clean aesthetic; distinct tone-on-tone color palate; local connection through museum-quality artifacts; flexible layout; market pantry Total Hotel Building Area (Estimate) A 4,500 SF divisible, multi-use meeting room, two private boardrooms Fully equipped fitness room and tempreature-controlled pool Multimedia lobby area with comfortable sofas featuring free Wi-Fi "B&F” lounge area offering cocktails, beverages and small plates (not three meals a day – evenings only). Crafted small-plate breakfast buffet (paid offering). Roof-top Bar. Proposed Hotel Product Recommendation Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 86 FIGURE 6-3 PROPOSED HOTEL CONCEPTUAL RECOMMENDATION Proposed Boutique Lifesyle Hotel Standard Room Size 300 350 Meeting Space 20 35 Lobby Food and Beverage Recreational Facilities Amenities & Services Complimentary high-speed WIFI Locally-curated Honor Bar Complimentary "Social Hour" Keyless room entry Roof-top bar Market Pantry - grab'n'go options Complimentary shuttle service to nearby companies Minimum two computer workstations Other An eco-emphasized, LEED-certified building would be viewed favorably within the market Boutique Lifesyle Hotel Social Lounge - The lobby should be designed as a communal "living room" space with an open floor plan and multiple, flexible seating arrangements. Connectivity in the lobby is crucial - high speed complimentary WiFi and plenty of hardwiring should be available for guests to plug in their personal devices (electric & USB). Limited F&B, with an emphasis on Beverage, should be offered in the lobby. Seating should be arranged to allow flexibility for guests who want to socialize/collaborate with other guests, but also offer individual seating options for guests who need to work independently. Digital self-check-in kiosks in addition to a more traditional guest check-in option should be offered. The meeting space needs to be flexible and innovative—designed to appeal to both business and social use. The meeting space should blend seamlessly with the public areas and provide new and creative event space to the market. Currently, the meeting space offered in full-service hotels in the market are fairly traditional — generally comprising one boardroom, one or more breakout rooms, and a ballroom. For the proposed Boutique Lifesyle Hotel, flexible ballroom space (approx. 3,000 sf) incorporating a courtyard or outdoor view is recommended. Two boardroom-style meeting rooms are also recommended. Interviews with market participants reveal that high-speed Internet and sophisticated AV equipment in the meeting spaces are crucial to attract the local tech companies. According to some local operators, hotels may also be competing with some of the larger tech companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.) for meeting space as many of these companies offer their own meeting space and/or food & beverage services, and rent them out to other parties. The meeting space should be fully equipped with up-to-date technology and designed in a way that upgrades are able to be handled easily. The fitness area is important for a boutique lifestyle property and needs to be open with natural light and ample equipment. A larger, full-service fitness center shared between hotel guests and residences may also enhance the overall plan for the mixed-use community. An outdoor swimming pool/whirlpool shared between hotel guests and residences would also make sense, and If possible, the outdoor pool area should offer lounge-style seating to attract leisure guests on the weekends. There are limited high-quality food and beverage options within the immediate neighborhood. For a Boutique Lifesyle Select hotel, a casual dining option with full bar/lounge serving small plate, tapas style food is recommended. The hotel may also opt to lease a ground floor facility to an experienced F&B operator, which should enhance the overall neighborhood and appeal to local patrons as well as hotel guests. A limited in-room dining menu should be offered. A roof-top bar with with views of the valley should provide guests and local patrons with a destination amenity offering favorite local brews and cocktails, as well as serving a casual dining menu. Minimum Maximum Given the subject site's suburban highway location and considering the average square footage of comparable properties in the area, micro-units would not be the most optimum size for this market. Standard guestroom size at the competitive hotels range from 300 to 350 square feet, we recommend a size in the lower end of this range with enhanced functionality. As a Boutique Lifestyle hotel, some suites should also be offered (10% of guestrooms). Recommended 310 25Square Foot per Guestroom Square Feet Unit Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 87 7. Millennial Focused Hotel The following paragraph will discuss the current social and economic trends affecting the travel industry. Millennials (also known as Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends. Demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. Millennial characteristics vary by region, depending on social and economic conditions. However, the generation is generally marked by an increased use and familiarity with communications, media, and digital technologies. In most parts of the world, their upbringing was marked by an increase in a liberal approach to politics and economics; the effects of this environment are disputed. The following bullet points will discuss travel preferences for Millennials. • Localization – Millennials seek unique, authentic local experiences over the average “box” hotel experience. Hotels should be designed specific to the local market, featuring products and design elements that reflect the unique attributes of each locale. o Ex: locally-sourced grab’n’go food options; thoughtfully-curated Honor Bar featuring local products (i.e. TCHO Chocolate in San Francisco) in guestrooms; hotel design featuring local artists; signature local amenities; guest bike rental program so guests can explore the neighborhood • On Demand Convenience – Millennials seek immediate gratification and speed/efficiency in their travel experience. o Mobile app that allows you to text message your room-service orders, live chat with concierge, check-in and out of your guestroom; digital self-check-in kiosks; mobile keyless check-ins; Honor Bar/Mini-bar in guestrooms; grab’n’go options/”take-out” F&B options; tablets with apps in F&B space for self-service ordering • Smart Tech – Technology must be incorporated into the guest experience in a way that is intuitive and helpful, not overdone and complicated. Over-teching can backfire and cause operational issues. o Ex: Smart TVs where guests can access their personal content subscription accounts (Netflix, Hulu, etc.); tablets in guestrooms where Tech-Savvy Millennial Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 88 guests can navigate hotel features, order room service, find out information about the local neighborhood; air play technology/docking stations/cables equipped to plug in personal mobile devices • Connectivity – availability of high-speed WIFI is crucial. Complimentary high- speed Internet is becoming more of a requirement rather than an amenity. Ample electrical outlets/USB ports in guestrooms and public areas is imperative as guests often bring multiple mobile devices with them during their travel and need to stay connected. • Community – Millennials seek social experiences when they travel, even when they are doing seemingly independent activities (i.e. working). The hotel’s lobby should be designed as a communal, interactive area where guests (and/or public) can work/lounge/play. • Value - Micro-unit or “Pod” Hotels – Pod hotels are characterized by their smaller room size (150-175 square feet), unique designs, and high-tech gadget features. These hotels offer a value by sacrificing space for price. While Pod hotels may be an excellent alternative in dense, urban locations such as New York City, this model may not work in less dense, suburban markets where demand is seasonal in nature. Based on our market research, this concept is not recommended in the Sunnyvale market due to the need for the hotel to attract different market segments during the weekends. Furthermore, even Millennials prefer more square footage if given the alternative at a similar value. o Ex: Yotel, Pod Hotels, citizenM, and the upcoming Tommie brand by Commune. • One caveat to consider is that technology is constantly evolving and may become outdated fairly quickly. Specifically, in markets like Silicon Valley where the local market is literally creating the newest technology, it can be hard to keep up with the latest and greatest. There is a concern that overly improving a hotel with what is currently the latest technology can result in a significant investment that becomes outdated quickly and the hotel may struggle to keep up. Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 89 Millennial Focused Hotel Examples THE EPIPHANY Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 90 THE EPIPHANY HOTEL Name Location Location Types Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) (SF) Per Room F&B Lure + Till Restaurant (full-service restaurant) 24/7 In-room dining Recreational Facilities Business Center Amenities & Services •Complimentary high-speed WIFI (upgrade for fee) •Tech Concierge Services •Guest Bike Rentals •Guestroom Honor Bar featuring local products •Full-size luxury amenities in guestrooms - available for purchase • •Illy espresso machines • Other Two Apple computer workstations on mezzanine level 7.6 The Epiphany's meeting space is designed to be flexible, blending seamlessly with the hotel's public areas. The hotel's meeting space is located on the mezzanine level and comprises one boardroom and one flex room that is used as business center/public space when not rented for private events. The mezzanine level also includes a small outdoor terrace that can be used in conjunction with the flex room for cocktail receptions. In addition, the hotel offers four hospitality suites located on the 8th floor that can be transformed into additional meeting space. The hospitality suites are located adjacent to one another and feature a large, contiguous patio. When combined, these hospitality suites can accommodate up to 175 guests. The hotel was designed by IDEO, an international design and consulting firm founded in Palo Alto, with the vision of creating a high-tech hotel that caters to and inspires the tech-savvy traveler. One of the focal design features of the hotel is Edison, a dynamic light-and-motion sculpture that was engineered, built, and coded for a 10x10 foot array of 100 lightbulb, each of which is individually controlled by a central computer and vertically spans the hotel's two-story mezzanine. Bedside G-LINK docking station that allows guests to wirelessly connect their personal mobile devices in guestrooms Smart TV's that guests can access their personal subscription accounts from (Netflix/Hulu/Youtube) Complimentary access to fitness club located next door 86 Standard guestrooms (73) average 300 square feet and feature King or Queen/Queen beds; Junior Suites (9) feature King beds and balconies; Hospitality Suites feature King Beds, balconies, and premium amenities Palo Alto, CA 2 650 The Epiphany - Recharge and Stay Wired Urban Joie de Vivre 2014 Full Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 91 ALOFT Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 92 ALOFT HOTEL Name Location Location Types Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Std Guestroom Size Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) (SF) Per Room Aloft Cupertino offers one meeting room that can be subdivided into three smaller rooms. F&B Re:Mix Lobby Lounge (open-concept) W XYZ Bar (outdoor patio) Re:Fuel Grab'n'Go Eatery Recreational Facilities Re:Charge Fitness Center Outdoor Swimming Pool/Whirlpool Business Center Two Apple computer workstations in lobby Amenities & Services •Complimentary high-speed WIFI (upgrade for fee) •Lobby iPAD Kiosk •AppleTVs in all guestrooms •Pool Table in lobby •Complimentary shuttle service to nearby tech companies •"Sassy Hour" from 3:30 to 7pm daily at W XYZ bar (not complimentary) 300 1 1,100 8.9 Aloft Cupertino, CA Suburban Starwood 2013 Select 123 Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 93 HOTEL MAX Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 94 HOTEL MAX Name Hotel Max - The Most Artistic Downtown Seattle Hotel Location Seattle, WA Location Types Urban Affiliation Provenance Hotels Year Open/Affiliated 1926/2005 Service Full Rooms 163 Guestroom Size "Mini" - full or queen beds (175 square feet); "Classic" - queen, king, or double/double beds (250 square feet); "Max" - king or double/double beds (375 square feet) Meeting Rooms 2 Meeting Space (SF)6,700 (SF) Per Room 41.1 The Hotel Max offers two meeting room options - a more traditional boardroom and un-traditional 6,300 square foot "Artist Loft" that features ample natural light, concrete floors, and an entrance accessible through an 8' car elevator. The unique nature and flexibility of this meeting space makes it popular for a wide-range of events. F&B Miller's Guild Restaurant (leased - James Beard awarding Chef) In-room dining Recreational Facilities 24/7 Fitness Center Business Center 24/7 Two computer workstation Amenities & Services •Complimentary high-speed WIFI (upgrade for fee) •Smart TVs in guestrooms •Original artwork in guestrooms and public areas •Pet-friendly hotel; offers pet amenities and pet room service •"Get it now" room service for forgotten items in addition to F&B •Guests can borrow iPods that are preloaded with music from front desk •Spiritual menu - offers a variety of books of faith for borrow •Complimentary local craft beer hour from 5:30 to 6:30pm daily •Pop art lobby gallery featuring original artwork Other The 5th floor of the hotel is themed to play homage to Sub Pop Records, Seattle's iconic independent record label Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 95 ACE HOTEL Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 96 ACE HOTEL Name Location Location Types Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) (SF) Per Room The Ace Hotel offers two dedicated meeting rooms - one 700 square foot boardroom, and a 2,700 square foot flexible event space that can be used for wedding receptions, corporate meetings, cocktail parties, and fashion shows. The meeting space is operated by the third-party restaurant operator. Additionally, the hotel's two Loft Suites can be rented for meetings and cocktail parties. F&B The Breslin Dining Room & Bar John Dory Oyster Bar No. 7 Sub Shop Stumptown Coffee Roasters Lobby Bar 24/7 In-room dining *All f&b services are leased to third-parties Recreational Facilities 24/7 Fitness Center; Art Gallery Business Center Computer workstations Amenities & Services •Complimentary high-speed WIFI (upgrade for fee) •Dog-friendly •Smart TVs in guestrooms •Original artwork in guestrooms and public areas •Locally-made and vintage furnishings •Locally-curated minibar; Loft Suites offer full-sized Smeg refrigerators •Hypoallergenic beds •Guestroom amenities and products available for purchase (just take with you) •Open lobby concept with flexible seating options for work/play/lounge Other Full The Ace Hotel's lobby dually serves as public space where guests/locals hang out/work during the day, and lounge/drink/play at night. Events are featured in the lobby throughout the week. Past events include free live DJ sets and "Codeathon," a three-day series that challenge interactive designers, developers, and students to build a health-based app. Offers two retail outlets - Opening Ceremony (clothing boutique) and Project No. 8 gift shop Ace Hotel New York, NY Urban Ace Hotels 2009 275 "Bunk Beds" - twin-sized bunk beds; "Mini" - full-sized beds"; "Small" - full/queen/king beds; "Medium" - full/queen/king beds (330 square feet); "Large" - king beds (400 square feet); "Double" - double-beds; "Loft Suite" - king beds (711 square feet) 2 3,600 13.1 Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 97 CITIZENM Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 98 CITIZENM Name Location Location Types Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) citizenM hotels are designed for transient travelers seeking fast, convenient, and affordable luxury in urban markets and do not offer meeting space F&B canteenM - cafeteria-style casual grab and go option available 24/7 - space is configured where it feels like a bar/market pantry/coffee shop all in one. Offers barista-made coffee, fresh juices, hot & cold food items, and a full bar. The F&B space blends seamlessly with the lobby "living room." cloudbar - rooftop bar & lounge serving artisan cocktails Recreational Facilities Fitness center Business Center Mac computer workstations in mezzanine levels Amenities & Services •Digital touch-screen self check-in kiosks (staff available for help) •Complimentary high-speed WIFI (upgrade for fee) •XL King-sized beds •Complimentary new release movies •"MoodPad" tablet that controls the tv/lighting/temperature/alarm in each guestrooms. The tablets can be used to surf the web also. •Mood lighting features •Luxury bath amenities that were specifically designed for citizenM •Giftshop for essentials/local items 230 "Pod-style" guestrooms - 170 square feet; no suites offered N/A N/A Select citizenM - Affordable Luxury for the People New York, NY Urban Citizen M 2014 Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 99 VIRGIN HOTELS Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 100 VIRGIN HOTELS Name Location Location Types Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) (SF) Per Room Virgin Hotel Chicago features three flexible meeting rooms, the largest of which will seat up to 170 theater-style. The meeting rooms will be designed to offer flexible and creative event space that can cater formal corporate dinners to fun mixers with mini-golf and life-sized Jenga games. F&B Miss Ricky's - three-meal The Commons Club - three-meal The Rooftop Bar TwoZeroThree - coffee and wine bar 24/7 In-room dining Recreational Facilities Rooftop gym featuring internet-equipped Technogym cardio machines; Full-service spa Amenities & Services •Complimentary WIFI •Mobile app that allows guests to order room service, control temperature, make dinner reservation, live chat with concierge and/or other guests •Smart TVs in guestrooms to stream your personal content; download movies onto your mobile device to watch during rental period •Minibars stocked at "street prices" in guestrooms •Sit-down makeup vanity in guestroom baths •One-of-a-kind custom designed hybrid bed with ergonomic headboard and erectable footboard •Dog-friendly rooms available •Hosted Social Hour from 6-7pm nightly Notes Virgin Hotel Chicago is the brand's first hotel, with a flagship location in New York, NY to open soon. Two Virgin Hotels are under construction in the Bay Area, one in San Francisco and one in Milpitas. Virgin Hotels will feature contemporary style, highly functional and efficient yet personalized experiences, ample communal space, and a signature restaurant. Full Virgin Hotel Chicago, Il Urban Virgin Hotels 2015 "Chambers" concept guestrooms with sliding set of privacy doors that separate the "dressing room" and "sleeping lounge" 3 2,300 9.2 250 Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 101 AC BY MARRIOTT Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 102 AC BY MARRIOTT Name Location Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) (SF) Per Room In addition to dedicated meeting rooms, AC Hotels' f&b outlets are multifunctional and flexible alternatives to traditional meeting space. F&B AC Lounge - small plates and beverage service AC Kitchen - European inspired breakfast featuring made-to-order hot items (for a fee) AC Hotels' will focus on the "B" in F&B, with the bar serving as a focal point of public space. F&B outlets designed to be multifunctional and flexible. Bar features Internet and power outlets. Recreational Facilities 24/7 Fitness Room with LCD TVs on cardio equipment. A salt water pool Business Center AC Library - communal tables that inspire a collaborative atmosphere Amenities & Services •Complimentary WIFI •Smart TVs in guestrooms to stream your personal content •Purchase ready FF&E in guestrooms •Media salons in certain locations Notes The first AC Hotel was founded in Spain; in 2011, AC Hotels and Marriott formed a joint venture. The first AC Hotel by Marriott in the U.S. opened in New Orleans, LA. Future U.S. locations inclue Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, and New York. 210 Guestrooms range from 277 to 350 square feet, depending on market 5 3,420 16.3 Select AC Hotel by Marriot - Stylish Hotels for Urban Spirits San Jose, CA Marriott 2016 Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 103 TOMMIE HOTELS Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 104 TOMMIE HOTELS – DESIGN GUIDELINES Name Location Location Types Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) The exact programming for the meeting space has not been released yet but will be limited, flexible, and blend with the hotel's public spaces. F&B Details TBD but will consist of a more casual grab'n'go style option and full bar/lounge and/or rooftop bar. Recreational Facilities Fitness center Business Center Computer workstations Amenities & Services •"Help Yourself" Experience - self check-in kiosks, grab'n'go "general store," mobile check-in •Complimentary high-speed WIFI (upgrade for fee) •Ergonomically designed, space efficient guestrooms •"Reading Rooms" - public lounge that will feature games and promote socializing among guests •Custom wood finishes and designs similar to upscale Thompson Hotels Notes tommie is envisioned to be the "younger" version of Commune's Thompson brand and is expected to appeal to the youthfully-minded global traveler (millenials) who are looking for a value. The hotel's guestrooms will be designed to serve as affordable "crash pads" for guests who will spend most of their time out and about exploring the city they are visiting. The public areas will be designed to provide guests the opportunity to interact with each other and will feature interactive multimedia such as customizable music listening booths. Select tommie - crash pad New York, NY Urban Commune Hotels 2015 329; 250 Micro-unit guestrooms - 160 square feet N/A N/A Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 105 RADISSON RED Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 106 RADISSON RED – DESIGN GUIDELINES Name Location Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting space will be limited, feature state-of-the-art technology, and designed with flexibility in mind. F&B F&B options will include a bar and self-service food options Bar offerings will inclue coffee, signature cocktails, local beers, snacks, and small plates Amenities & Services •Complimentary WIFI •"RED" App - Mobile app that allows guests to check-in, order room service, control temperature, make dinner reservation, live chat with concierge and/or other guests •Other amenities TBD Notes Radisson Red is envisioned to target the Millenial travelers, offering unique contemporary designs that reflect the culture of each location. Radisson Red will be technologically-driven with a proprietary mobile application that will allow guests to navigate the hotel's amenities and services. The first Radisson Red Hotel will open in Shenyang Hunnan, China in 2016, with more to follow. Select Radisson Red US locations TBD Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group 2016 Varies Average guestroom size will be approximately 280 square feet. Approx. 1,250 square feet Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 107 TRYP BY WYNDHAM Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 108 TRYP BY WYNDHAM – DESIGN GUIDELINES Name Location Location Types Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) (SF) Per Room Flexible and blend with the hotel's public spaces. Adjustable lighting, a sound system and digital AV equipment are to be incorporated for internet connectivity, presentations and demonstrations. These areas are also serviced by food and beverage offerings to suit breakfast, lunch, dinner and break out sessions. F&B Gastrobar is the zone within plaza central where the communal table, bar, and café are located. Ideally these areas are in proximity to each other and allow for guests to move freely between them. Breakfast, tapas, wine, beer are served and other activities occur here from the morning through to the evening. Recreational Facilities Fitness center Business Center Centro also serves as an open concept business center as it features wireless internet and printers Amenities & Services •Signature check-in pods, back wall and sign post. •Complimentary high-speed WIFI (upgrade for fee) •Ergonomically designed, space efficient guestrooms •The Library may be incorporated as its own room provided that space is available •Urban energy is referenced subtly in the design through the use of offset planes visual “objects in motion”, and eclectic furnishings in spirited color palates. Notes Every TRYP will reflect the city and neighborhood in which it lives. Local references can be discovered throughout the hotel in objects, images and materials. Designers are encouraged to source local pieces or curate “found objects” to create a unique look and to build a relationship with the hotel’s community. Plaza Central is anchored by Centro. It is the primary seating area where guests can lounge, enjoy food and drinks on casual, continental height tables, work, meet or simply people watch while reading. 180 Guestrooms range from 277 to 350 square feet, depending on market 5 3,420 19.0 Tryp - Youthful Energetic 112 locations globally Urban and Suburban Wyndham Hotels 2013 Select Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 109 KIMPTON HOTELS Millennial Focused Hotel Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 110 KIMPTON HOTELS – DESIGN GUIDELINES Name Location Location Types Affiliation Year Open/Affiliated Service Rooms Guestrooms Meeting Rooms Meeting Space (SF) (SF) Per Room Flexible and functional hotel meeting spaces. These areas are also serviced by food and beverage offerings to suit breakfast, lunch, dinner and break out sessions. F&B Partnering with celebrity chefs with concepts such as Postrio, Masa and Fifth Floor to create destination food and beverage in our properties. Options include and not limited to Intimate 40-seat lounge, a high-energy rooftop lounge, highly- programmed backyard pool or 120-seat dining room. Recreational Facilities Fitness center featuring state-of-the-art cardio machines; full-service spa Amenities & Services •Complimentary WIFI •Smart TVs in guestrooms to stream your personal content •Standard environmentally friendly products and practices, such as eco-friendly cleaning supplies and recycling •100% pet friendly Notes Kimpton enchants guests through a mix of boutique destinations bound together by warm, genuine service, superlative style, distinctive perks, and addictive irreverence. True boutique experience responding to the surrounding environment and delivering an experience that is authentic and reflective of the location. 200 Guestrooms range from 300 to 400 square feet, depending on market 5 5,000 25.0 Kimpton Hotels - tailored—from design to menus 59 hotels and 77 restaurants, bars and lounges in 30 U.S. cities and abroad Urban , Suburban, and Resort IHG 1981 Full-service Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 111 8. Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. This report is set forth as a market study of the proposed subject hotel; this is not an appraisal or opinion of value. 2. This report is to be used in whole and not in part. 3. No responsibility is assumed for matters of a legal nature, nor do we render any opinion as to title, which is assumed marketable and free of any deed restrictions and easements. The property is evaluated as though free and clear unless otherwise stated. 4. We assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the sub-soil or structures, such as underground storage tanks, that would impact the property’s development potential. No responsibility is assumed for these conditions or for any engineering that may be required to discover them. 5. We have not considered the presence of potentially hazardous materials or any form of toxic waste on the project site. The consultants are not qualified to detect hazardous substances, and we urge the client to retain an expert in this field if desired. 6. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective on January 26, 1992. We have assumed the proposed hotel would be designed and constructed to be in full compliance with the ADA. 7. We have made no survey of the site, and we assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. Sketches, photographs, maps, and other exhibits are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. It is assumed that the use of the described real estate will be within the boundaries of the property described, and that no encroachment will exist. 8. All information, financial operating statements, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by Hospitality Link International, Inc., are assumed true and correct. We can assume no liability resulting from misinformation. 9. Unless noted, we assume that there are no encroachments, zoning violations, or building violations encumbering the subject property. 10. The property is assumed to be in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, local, and private codes, laws, consents, licenses, and regulations (including a liquor license where appropriate), and that all licenses, permits, Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 112 certificates, franchises, and so forth can be freely renewed or transferred to a purchaser. 11. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless specified otherwise. 12. None of this material may be reproduced in any form without our written permission, and the report cannot be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. 13. We are not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this analysis without previous arrangements, and only when our standard per-diem fees and travel costs are paid prior to the appearance. 14. If the reader is making a fiduciary or individual investment decision and has any questions concerning the material presented in this report, it is recommended that the reader contact us. 15. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent to the date of our field inspection. 16. The quality of a lodging facility's on-site management has a direct effect on a property's economic viability. The financial forecasts presented in this analysis assume responsible ownership and competent management. Any departure from this assumption may have a significant impact on the projected operating results. 17. The financial analysis presented in this report is based upon assumptions, estimates, and evaluations of the market conditions in the local and national economy, which may be subject to sharp rises and declines. Over the projection period considered in our analysis, wages and other operating expenses may increase or decrease because of market volatility and economic forces outside the control of the hotel’s management. We assume that the price of hotel rooms, food, beverages, and other sources of revenue to the hotel will be adjusted to offset any increases or decreases in related costs. We do not warrant that our estimates will be attained, but they have been developed based upon information obtained during the course of our market research and are intended to reflect the expectations of a typical hotel investor as of the stated date of the report. 18. This analysis assumes continuation of all Internal Revenue Service tax code provisions as stated or interpreted on either the date of value or the date of our field inspection, whichever occurs first. 19. Many of the figures presented in this report were generated using sophisticated computer models that make calculations based on numbers carried out to three Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Proposed Westport Cupertino Hotel – Cupertino, CAlifornia 113 or more decimal places. In the interest of simplicity, most numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. Thus, these figures may be subject to small rounding errors. 20. It is agreed that our liability to the client is limited to the amount of the fee paid as liquidated damages. Our responsibility is limited to the client, and use of this report by third parties shall be solely at the risk of the client and/or third parties. The use of this report is also subject to the terms and conditions set forth in our engagement letter with the client. 21. Evaluating and comprising financial forecasts for hotels is both a science and an art. Although this analysis employs various mathematical calculations to provide value indications, the final forecasts are subjective and may be influenced by our experience and other factors not specifically set forth in this report. P ROFESSIONAL P ROFILE Hospitality Link International, Inc. www.hospitalitylink.net Jaime Law Director 2004 New Brunswick Drive San Mateo, California 94402 T: (415) 613-0615 jlaw@hospitalitylink.net Career Summary Jaime Law is a Director at Hospitality Link International, Inc. Mr. Law is a seasoned hospitality real estate professional focusing on consulting and advisory, as well as brokerage services in the hospitality sector. Prior to joining Hospitality Link International, Inc., Mr. Law was Associate in the Marcus and Millichap Hospitality Group and Vice President at HVS Consulting and Valuation. In his role at HVS, for over a decade, he performed real estate due diligence, appraisals, consulting, advisory, and feasibility studies for corporate and institutional clients on hundreds of assignments exceeding $13 billion of hotel, resort, gaming, and golf course real estate for both existing and proposed properties. He previously held several hotel operations roles with Marriott and Fairmont Hotels including revenue management, accounting, and F&B. Mr. Law holds a BS in Hospitality Industry Management degree from the University of San Francisco. Specialty • Consulting and Advisory Services • Commercial Real Estate Investment Sales • Hotel and Resort Properties Professional Designations • Real Estate License – State of California (#01987412) Education • BS, University of San Francisco – Hospitality Industry Management Properties Evaluated (Partial List) California Ace Hotel, Proposed, Palm Springs Setai San Diego Hotel, Proposed, San Diego Taj Campton Place Hotel, San Francisco Clift Hotel, San Francisco Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco Four Seasons Hotel, San Francisco Hotel Monaco, San Francisco Westin Saint Francis, San Francisco Huntley Hotel, Santa Monica Loews Hotel, Santa Monica Fairmont Sonoma Mission Inn, Sonoma Hyatt Regency La Jolla at Aventine, San Diego Proposed Hotel, La Jolla Grand Del Mar, San Diego Claremont Resort & Spa, Berkeley JW Marriott San Francisco, San Francisco Lane Field Hotels, San Diego Gaige House, Glen Ellen Rancho Bernardo Inn, San Diego La Costa Resort & Spa, Carlsbad Ritz‐Carlton, Half Moon Bay Rosewood Sand Hill, Menlo Park Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego, San Diego Proposed Infusion Beach and Hotel, Palm Springs Carneros Inn, Napa Valley Calistoga Ranch, Napa Valley Hawaii Marriott Wailea Beach Resort, Wailea Grand Wailea A Waldorf Astoria Resort, Wailea Sheraton Maui Resort & Spa, Lahaina Moana Surfrider Westin Resort & Spa, Waikiki Royal Hawaiian, Waikiki Sheraton Waikiki Beach, Waikiki Sheraton Princess Kaiulani, Waikiki Proposed King Kalakahua Plaza, Waikiki Proposed Makaha Vallery Resort Hilton Waikoloa Village Resort, Waikoloa Four Seasons Resort Maui, Wailea Proposed Coco Palms Resort, Kauai Doubletree Alana Waikiki, Waikiki Hilton Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort, Waikiki Washington DoubleTree by Hilton Arctic Club Hotel, Seattle Hotel 1000, Seattle The Roosevelt Hotel, Seattle Renaissance Madison, Seattle W Hotel Seattle, Seattle Proposed Seattle First Avenue Hotel, Seattle Proposed Convention Hotel at Greyhound Site, Seattle Arizona JW Marriott Camelback Inn, Scottsdale Westin La Paloma, Tucson JW Marriott Starr Pass Resort and Spa, Tucson Crowne Plaza Phoenix-Airport, Phoenix Hyatt Place, Mesa Massachusetts Four Seasons, Boston Fairmont Copley Plaza, Boston Nevada Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas Flamingo Las Vegas, Las Vegas Paris Las Vegas, Las Vegas International Proposed Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Aruba Renaissance Aruba Resort & Casino Renaissance Curacao Resort & Casino Proposed Casino Monticello, Santiago, Chile Proposed Casino at Proposed Marina Papagayo Village, Guancaste, Costa Rica Rip Jack Inn, Playa Grande, Costa Rica Proposed Capella Pedregal, Cabo San Lucas Four Seasons Mexico Distrito Federal Four Seasons Punta Mita, Mexico The Westin Grand Cayman Seven Mile Beach Resort & Spa Select Clients • Bank of the Orient • City of San Jose • EB5 Capital • Huntington Hotel Group • R.C. Hedreen Company • Portman Holdings • Stanford University • Wells Fargo • Thayer Lodging Group • Westmont Hospitality Group • The Procaccianti Group • Unified Port of San Diego P ROFESSIONAL P ROFILE Hospitality Link International, Inc. www.hospitalitylink.net Holden Lim President 2004 New Brunswick Drive San Mateo, California 94402 T: (415) 810-0833 holdenlim@hospitalitylink.net Specialty • Commercial Real Estate Investment Sales • Finance and Advisory Services • Hotel and Resort Properties Select Clients • Ashford Hospitality Trust • Athens Group • Canyon Equity • Chartres Lodging Group • Felcor Lodging Trust • Franklin Croft • Fremont Realty Capital • HCV Pacific Partners • JMI Realty • Joie de Vivre Hospitality • Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group • Outrigger Enterprises • Rockpoint Group • The Hotel Group • The Procaccianti Group • Westbrook Partners Professional Designations • Licensed Real Estate Broker – State of California (#01328565) Education • MBA, Golden Gate University - Finance • BBA, University of Hawaii - Travel Industry Management Career Summary Holden Lim is the President of Hospitality Link International, Inc. During the course of his 29-year career, Mr. Lim has completed over $4.0 billion in real estate transactions, representing a variety of structures that include dispositions, debt financings and equity recapitalizations. Mr. Lim has strong relationships with institutional investors, private equity funds, investment banks, REITs, high net worth investors, foreign investors and developers as well as insurance companies, domestic and foreign banks and debt funds. Prior to Hospitality Link International, Inc., Mr. Lim was Managing Director in the San Francisco office of HFF, LP and was primarily responsible for institutional-grade hotel and resort property transactions throughout North America. Previously, Mr. Lim was Senior Director with Cushman & Wakefield Sonnenblick Goldman for 11 years. Some of the deals with which he was intimately involved include the sale of the Westin St. Francis, JW Marriott San Francisco and San Diego Hilton Gaslamp Quarter, the financing of the Ilikai Hotel (currently The Modern Honolulu Hotel), Montage Beverly Hills Hotel, Spa & Residences, AMANGANI, Beverly Hilton and Hilton Los Cabos Beach & Golf Resort, and the joint-venture equity raise and financing of the OHANA Waikiki Beachcomber. Mr. Lim also has hotel operations and consulting experience, including a variety of management positions at the Westin St. Francis and later as a consultant with HVS International in San Francisco. Representative Transactions PROPERTY LOCATION type 9. value Beverly Hilton Beverly Hills, CA Financing $300,000,000 Westin St. Francis San Francisco, CA Investment Sale $243,000,000 Montage Hotel, Spa & Residences Beverly Hills, CA Financing $200,000,000 Renaissance Ilikai (renamed The Modern) Honolulu, HI Financing $114,900,000 Hyatt Regency Sacramento Sacramento, CA Financing $100,000,000 Pan Pacific Hotel (renamed JW Marriott) San Francisco, CA Investment Sale $95,000,000 Hilton San Diego Gaslamp Quarter San Diego, CA Investment Sale $85,000,000 Wyland Waikiki Resort (now Courtyard Waikiki) Honolulu, HI Financing $80,000,000 The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Tahoe Truckee, CA Investment Sale $73,600,000 181 Fremont Street Land Site San Francisco, CA Investment Sale $71,000,000 Phoenix Inns Portfolio Various Financing $63,000,000 Hotel Palomar Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA Financing $51,000,000 Embassy Suites Anaheim-Orange Orange, CA Investment Sale $48,400,000 Huntington Hotel San Francisco, CA Investment Sale $42,500,000 Courtyard Sunnyvale Sunnyvale, CA Financing $40,600,000 AC Marriott San Jose, CA Construction $29,400,000 Galleria Park Hotel San Francisco, CA Investment Sale $25,000,000 Holiday Inn Santa Barbara-Goleta Goleta, CA Investment Sale $24,000,000 La Playa Hotel & Cottages Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA Investment Sale $23,650,000 Hotel Renew Honolulu, HI Investment Sale $23,500,000 Residence Inn Coconut Grove Coconut Grove, FL Investment Sale $21,820,000 Residence Inn Birmingham Birmingham, AL Investment Sale $20,000,000 Hilton Ontario Airport Ontario, CA Investment Sale $18,500,000 Naniloa Resort Hilo, HI Financing $18,500,000 Tremont Plaza Hotel Baltimore, MD Financing $18,000,000 AMANGANI Resort Jackson Hole, WY Financing $16,360,000 Hampton Inn & Suites Camarillo Camarillo, CA Investment Sale $15,700,000 Residence Inn Clearwater Clearwater, FL Investment Sale $15,000,000 Holiday Inn Express & Suites Fort Worth Fort Worth, TX Financing $13,900,000 Staybridge Suites Savannah Savannah, GA Investment Sale $13,615,000 Laurel Inn San Francisco, CA Financing $10,000,000 Hyatt Northstar Lodge Truckee, CA Investment Sale $9,850,000 Holiday Inn Express Mission Bay San Diego, CA Investment Sale $5,800,000 Dolphin Inn Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA Investment Sale $4,700,000 M E M O R A N D U M To: Catarina Kidd, City of Cupertino From: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Subject: Fiscal Analysis of the Westport Cupertino GPA Application, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2; EPS #171072 Date: July 17, 2017 The City of Cupertino retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to prepare this fiscal impact analysis of an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The applicant is proposing a mixed-use project to be developed on an 8.1-acre site located at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The applicant has provided two alternative development options for the City (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2). The proposed Alternative 1 development envisions 42,000 square feet of retail, 605 residential units, including 67 below-market-rate apartments, and a five- screen boutique movie theater. Alternative 2 proposes to develop 280,000 square feet of office space, 42,000 square feet of retail, a 170 room hotel, 270 residential units, including 40 below-market-rate apartments, and a five-screen boutique movie theater. The EPS analysis assesses the effects of both proposed development alternatives on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund. The objective of the analysis is to quantify whether the proposed GPA will generate adequate revenues to cover the costs of providing ongoing services to associated new residents and employees. The analysis does not consider the impact of the proposals on potential capital facilities cost requirements or other one-time costs. The analysis compares the impact of the proposed GPA at buildout to the baseline impact of existing uses in the project area. This fiscal analysis is intended as a planning-level document to inform land use policy. EPS does not make tenant-specific assumptions as project tenants likely will change over time. The analysis is based on the City’s 2016-17 Adopted General Fund budget and presents findings in constant 2017 dollars. A summary of fiscal impact estimates attributable to the proposed General Plan Amendments is provided below. Actual fiscal impacts will depend on a number of factors that cannot be predicted with certainty, including the market performance of the project, future changes in City or State budgeting practices, and the efficiency of various City Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 2 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx departments in providing services. Key analytical inputs and assumptions used in this analysis are from the development application, City documents, information from City staff, and EPS industry knowledge. Summary of Findings 1. Alternative 1 will result in an annual net negative fiscal impact to the City of Cupertino’s General Fund while Alternative 2 will generate an annual net fiscal benefit. It is estimated that GPA proposal Alternative 1 will result in a negative annual fiscal impact of approximately $146,000 on the City’s General Fund, as shown in Table 1. Although net revenues are estimated to be $483,000 annually, an increase in General Fund expenditures of about $629,000 results in a negative net fiscal impact. It is estimated that GPA proposal Alternative 2 will result in a positive annual fiscal impact of $1.1 million on the City’s General Fund, as shown in Table 2. The net increase in General Fund revenue from Alternative 2 is estimated at roughly $1.7 million more annually than existing uses. This compares with a net increase in General Fund expenditures estimated at approximately $535,000 more per year, over the existing uses onsite. Table 1 Fiscal Impact Summary Alternative 1 (2017$) Table 2 Fiscal Impact Summary Alternative 2 (2017$) Revenue / Expense Category Alt 1. Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues $652,000 $169,000 $483,000 General Fund Expenditures $673,000 $44,000 $629,000 Net Impact on General Fund ($21,000)$125,000 ($146,000) Revenue / Expense Category Alt 2. Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues $1,834,000 $169,000 $1,665,000 General Fund Expenditures $579,000 $44,000 $535,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,254,000 $125,000 $1,129,000 Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 3 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx 2. At Alternative 1 project buildout, property tax will account for the largest revenue source to the City from the project, while at Alternative 2 project buildout, transient occupancy tax will account for the largest revenue source to the City. Property tax revenue is based on the estimated assessed value of the proposed project. The proposed development program for Alternative 1 results in an estimated assessed value of approximately $394.3 million dollars. The City levies a one percent property tax rate, with approximately 7.0 percent allocated to the General Fund.1 The proposed Alternative 1 program is projected to generate $276,000 annually in property tax for the City General Fund. The City of Cupertino currently levies a 12 percent transient occupancy tax (TOT) on room revenue generated by hotels in the City. The proposed 170 hotel rooms included Alternative 2 are projected to generate over $8.7 million in annual room revenue, providing the City’s General Fund with an estimated $1.0 million in annual TOT revenue. If the average room rate is lower than the anticipated $200 per night, TOT revenue will be lower. For example, an average room rate of $175 per night would generate an estimate $7.6 million in annual room revenue and $912,100 in TOT revenue. Under this scenario, the project’s annual impact before consideration of baseline impacts on the General Fund would increase from $1.3 million to $1.1 million, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Hotel Sensitivity Analysis for Alternative 2 (2017$) Fiscal Impact on the General Fund This section describes the methodology and key assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impacts of the proposed GPA. The analysis is based on information from three key sources: (1) the GPA application material submitted (2) interviews with City planning and finance staff (3) existing EPS industry knowledge EPS has developed a fiscal impact framework based on its in-house methodology and Cupertino- specific factors obtained from the sources above. EPS has not conducted an independent audit of the City’s budget, performed in-depth interviews with service-providing City departments, or 1 Property tax rate anticipated at project delivery; City of Cupertino 2016-17 Adopted Budget, page 80. Revenue / Expense Category Alt 2. Fiscal Impact ($200/Room Night) Alt 2. Fiscal Impact ($175/Room Night) General Fund Revenues $1,834,000 $1,704,000 General Fund Expenditures $579,000 $579,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,254,000 $1,124,000 Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 4 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx conducted detailed market analysis. EPS fiscal estimates differ from those provided by the applicant’s consultant due to the differences in methodology and the analytical assumptions used. A notable difference between the studies is that the applicant’s projection of revenues and cost i ncludes a number of factors (e.g., revenues from fines and forfeitures and costs associated with the Innovation and Technology Department) which have been excluded from the EPS analysis, based on City guidance that these costs are unlikely to be affected by the project. Proposed General Plan Amendment The applicant is proposing a mixed-use project to be developed on the 8.1-acre site located at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The applicant has submitted two alternative developments for the site (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2). The proposed Alternative 1 development envisions 42,000 square feet of retail, 605 residential units, and a five-screen boutique movie theater. Alternative 2 proposes to develop 280,000 square feet of office space, 42,000 square feet of retail, a 170 room hotel, 270 residential units, and a five-screen boutique movie theater. Table 4 and 5 presents the proposed GPA programs identified by the applicant. The table also presents EPS assumptions concerning the population and employment that would be supported by the project alternatives at buildout. A variety of revenues and costs included in this fiscal analysis are based on the anticipated “service population” shown in Table 4 and 5 which weights a local employee’s service burden at 50 percent of a resident’s burden. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 5 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 4 Development Program and Service Population for Alternative 1 Item Population Employment Service Population (2) Commercial Uses Retail 42,000 SF 400 SF / Employee 105 53 Movie Theater/Community Center 31,500 SF 1,100 SF / Employee 29 14 Subtotal 73,500 SF 134 67 Residential Rentals Market-Rate Apartments 538 DU 2.00 Residents / HH 1,076 1,076 Below-Market-Rate (Low-Income)49 DU 1.50 Residents / HH 74 74 Below-Market-Rate (Very Low-Income)18 DU 1.50 Residents / HH 27 27 Subtotal 67 1,177 1,177 Total 605 DU 1,177 134 1,243 (1) Household and employment densities vary based on specific tenant and space sizes. EPS assumptions reflect typical conditions. (2) Per-person employee burden on City service is weighted at 50 percent of resident burden. Resident or Worker Density Assumptions (1) Development Program Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 6 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 5 Development Program and Service Population for Alternative 2 Item Population Employment Service Population (2) Commercial Uses General Office 280,000 SF 250 SF / Employee 1,120 560 Retail 42,000 SF 400 SF / Employee 105 53 Movie Theater/Community Center 31,500 SF 1,100 SF / Employee 29 14 Subtotal 353,500 SF 1,254 627 Hotel 170 Rooms 1.0 Room(s) / Employee 170 85 Residential Rentals Market-Rate Apartments 230 DU 2.00 Residents / HH 460 460 Below-Market-Rate (Low-Income)22 DU 1.50 Residents / HH 33 33 Below-Market-Rate (Very Low-Income)18 DU 1.50 Residents / HH 27 27 Subtotal 40 520 520 Total 270 DU 520 1,424 1,232 (1) Household and employment densities vary based on specific tenant and space sizes. EPS assumptions reflect typical conditions. (2) Per-person employee burden on City service is weighted at 50 percent of resident burden. Resident or Worker Density Assumptions (1) Development Program Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 7 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx General Fund Revenues New General Fund tax proceeds attributable to the proposed GPA will include sales tax, property tax, property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF), property transfer tax, TOT, utility user tax, franchise fees, and business licenses. Table 6 provides a summary of the Cupertino 2016-17 Adopted General Fund revenue budget and a description of the forecasting method relied upon for each relevant revenue source. Table 6 FY2016 - 17 Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors FY2016-17 Total Sales Tax Business to Business Sales Tax (1)$15,034,800 $0.20 per square foot of office Other Sales Tax $7,405,200 1.0%of estimated taxable sales Property Tax Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (2)$7,106,000 1.8%of Citywide Assessed Value Other Property Tax $11,635,000 7.0%of base property tax rate (1%) Transient Occupancy Tax $6,708,000 12%of total TOT revenue Utility Tax $3,122,000 2.4%of utility bills Franchise Fees $2,900,000 $38.21 per service population Other Taxes (3)$1,600,000 Construction Tax $500,000 - not estimated Business License $600,000 $17.67 per employee Property Transfer Tax $500,000 $0.55 per $1,000 in value Licenses & Permits $2,499,000 - not estimated Fines & Forfeitures $776,980 - not estimated Use of Money & Property $230,500 - not estimated Intergovernmental $19,003,224 - not estimated Charges for Services $600,000 - not estimated Miscellaneous $383,300 - not estimated Total Revenues $79,004,004 (2) FY2016-17 total reflects 38% allocation of the property tax total. Budget detail provided by the City. (3) FY2016-17 total reflects allocation of other taxes based on detail provided by the City. Project RevenueItem (1) FY2016-17 total reflects 67% allocation of the sales tax total. Budget detail provided by the City. Estimating factor reflects typical business-to-business sales tax generation in Silicon Valley offices. Estimating Factors Applied to Estimate Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 8 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Retail Sales Tax Revenue The proposed GPA is expected to generate retail sales tax revenue accruing to the City of Cupertino from three sources. Project residents’ household spending on retail in the City, project employee spending on retail in the City, and on-site retail sales will generate revenue for the General Fund.2 Household Spending This fiscal analysis relies on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic Consumer Expenditure Survey to establish the retail spending pattern of households. The spending patterns reflect household consumer behavior observed nationally for households with specified levels of annual income. This analysis uses anticipated residential rents to estimate household income. Then, to identify taxable retail expenditures made by project households, the analysis identifies and isolates taxable retail spending from total household spending. The analysis estimates that for market-rate units, households spend approximately 26.5 percent of gross household income on taxable retail purchases. For the below-market-rate senior housing units, this analysis estimates that nearly 32.1 percent of gross household income is spent on taxable retail purchases. The analysis assumes that about 25 percent of this taxable spending of new residents will be captured within the City.3 Local taxable spending in Cupertino is multiplied by project households to determine average annual taxable sales. Worker Spending This analysis estimates worker spending based on spending patterns reported in the Office- Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age, a research publication from the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).4 Similar to household spending data, these survey data were reviewed to identify taxable spending. The analysis estimates that each worker spends about $6,000 annually on taxable sales in the vicinity of their workplace. Because this spending is known to be near work, this analysis assumes that 50 percent of the taxable spending by project workers occurs within the city boundary. The taxable spending captured in Cupertino is multiplied by the number of workers supported by the proposed project. On-Site Retail Sales On-site retail sales are based on a taxable sales factor of $300 per square foot for retail and restaurant space and $50 per square foot for movie theater space. EPS adjusts retail sales to reflect net new sales within the City and to exclude the estimated resident and employee retail spending on-site. On-site retail sales are expected to generate the largest share of retail sales tax revenue attributable to the project. Table 7 and 8 outlines sales tax revenue projections at buildout for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, respectively. 2 Business-to-business (B2B) sales tax revenue is estimated in Table 20 and Table 21. 3 Capture rate assumption reflects EPS consultation with City of Cupertino’s Economic Development Department concerning retail supply in the City. 4 Michael P. Niemira and John Connolly, International Council of Shopping Centers. “Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age,” 2012. Accessed online at: https://www.downtowndevelopment.com/pdf/icsc-report_office-worker-spending.pdf Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 9 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 7 Retail Sales Tax Revenue for Alternative 1 Item Annual Total at Buildout Project Households Retail Purchases in Cupertino Estimated Annual Household Income Market Rate 30%of income is rent $136,000 Below Market Rate 30%of income is rent $56,872 Household Taxable Retail Spending (1) Market Rate 26.5%percent of income $36,057 Below Market Rate 32.1%percent of income $18,256 Weighted Average Household Spending $34,086 Household Retail Spending in Cupertino (2)25%of retail expenditures $8,521 Project Households 605 Net New Retail Sales Captured in Cupertino $5,155,495 On-Site Sales New Retail Space (Sq.Ft.)42,000 Gross Taxable Retail Sales (3)$300 per square foot $12,600,000 New Movie Theater Space (Sq.Ft.)27,500 Gross Taxable Retail Sales from Movie Theater $50 per square foot $1,375,000 Total Gross Taxable Retail Sales $13,975,000 Sales Net of Redistributed Sales in City (4)80%of total taxable sales $11,180,000 Net New On-Site Taxable Sales (5)86%of net taxable sales $9,633,351 Net New Taxable Retail Sales $14,788,847 Total Sales Tax Revenue 1.0%of taxable sales $147,888 (1) Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey 2015 for respective income groups. (3) ICSC Research. (4) Assumes some sales shift from existing retailers in the city. (5) Reflects net sales after 30% capture of new resident and office worker sales accounted for above. Sources: State Board of Equalization, ICSC Research Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Assumptions (2) Assumes 25 percent of taxable retail spending by Cupertino residents is captured by the retailers within the City based on discussions with the City's Economic Development Manager. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 10 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 8 Retail Sales Tax Revenue for Alternative 2 Item Annual Total at Buildout Project Households Retail Purchases in Cupertino Estimated Annual Household Income Market Rate 30%of income is rent $124,800 Below Market Rate 30%of income is rent $52,465 Household Taxable Retail Spending (1) Market Rate 26.5%percent of income $33,088 Below Market Rate 32.1%percent of income $16,842 Weighted Average Household Spending $30,681 Household Retail Spending in Cupertino (2)25%of retail expenditures $7,670 Project Households 270 Net New Retail Sales Captured in Cupertino $2,070,968 Project Employee Retail Purchases in Cupertino Daily Office Worker Taxable Spending (3)$25.00 per work day Annual Office Worker Taxable Spending 240 workdays / year $6,000 Cupertino Spending Capture 50%$3,000 Office Workers 1,120 Net New Office Worker Taxable Spending in Cupertino $3,360,000 On-Site Sales New Retail Space (Sq.Ft.)42,000 Gross Taxable Retail Sales (3)$300 per square foot $12,600,000 New Movie Theater Space (Sq.Ft.)27,500 Gross Taxable Retail Sales from Movie Theater $50 per square foot $1,375,000 Total Gross Taxable Retail Sales $13,975,000 Sales Net of Redistributed Sales in City (4)80%of total taxable sales $11,180,000 Net New On-Site Taxable Sales (5)85%of net taxable sales $9,550,710 Net New Taxable Retail Sales $14,981,677 Total Sales Tax Revenue 1.0%of taxable sales $149,817 (1) Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey 2015 for respective income groups. (3) ICSC Research. (4) Assumes some sales shift from existing retailers in the city. (5) Reflects net sales after 30% capture of new resident and office worker sales accounted for above. Sources: State Board of Equalization, ICSC Research Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Assumptions (2) Assumes 25 percent of taxable retail spending by Cupertino residents is captured by the retailers within the City based on discussions with the City's Economic Development Manager. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 11 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Property Tax Revenue Property tax revenue is based on the estimated assessed value of the proposed project. Relying on the applicant’s proposed development program, EPS estimates the assessed value of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 at about $394.3 million and $415.7 million at buildout, respectively, as shown in Table 9 and Table 10. Commercial value assumptions reflect a review of market data. Residential value assumptions are based on capitalized rents, as shown in Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, and Table 14. The City levies a one percent property tax rate, with approximately 7.0 percent allocated to the General Fund.5 Table 9 Property Tax Revenue for Alternative 1 5 Property tax rate anticipated at project delivery; City of Cupertino 2016-17 Adopted Budget, page 80. Item Total at Buildout Property Tax Assessed Value Estimate Retail $600 Per Square Foot $25,200,000 Market-Rate Rental $635,000 Per Unit $341,630,000 Below-Market-Rate Rental $238,861 Per Unit $11,704,184 Movie Theater/Community Center $500 Per Square Foot $15,750,000 Total Assessed Value $394,284,184 Property Tax 1.0%Base Property Tax Rate $3,942,842 Cupertino General Fund Revenue (1)7.0%Allocation to Cupertino General Fund $275,999 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $7,106,000 Citywide Assessed Value (2)$21,350,000,000 Project Net Assessed Value Increase (3)1.85% Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (4)$131,231 (1) Legislation requires Counties to provide "no/low tax" cities with a Tax Equity Allocation equal to 7 percent of property tax share. (2) FY2016-2017 value based on the Santa Clara County Assessor Annual Assessor's Report. (4) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by project net assessed value increase. Assumption / Factor (3) Calculated by dividing the new assessed value by citywide assessed value. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 12 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 10 Property Tax Revenue for Alternative 2 Item Total at Buildout Property Tax Assessed Value Estimate Office $600 Per Square Foot $168,000,000 Retail $600 Per Square Foot $25,200,000 Market-Rate Rental $582,000 Per Unit $133,860,000 Below-Market-Rate Rental $220,353 Per Unit $4,847,766 Hotel $400,000 Per Room $68,000,000 Movie Theater/Community Center $500 Per Square Foot $15,750,000 Total Assessed Value $415,657,766 Property Tax 1.0%Base Property Tax Rate $4,156,578 Cupertino General Fund Revenue (1)7.0%Allocation to Cupertino General Fund $290,960 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $7,106,000 Citywide Assessed Value (2)$21,350,000,000 Project Net Assessed Value Increase (3)1.95% Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (4)$138,345 (1) Legislation requires Counties to provide "no/low tax" cities with a Tax Equity Allocation equal to 7 percent of property tax share. (2) FY2016-2017 value based on the Santa Clara County Assessor Annual Assessor's Report. (4) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by project net assessed value increase. Assumption / Factor (3) Calculated by dividing the new assessed value by citywide assessed value. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 13 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 11 Market-Rate Housing Value Estimate for Alternative 1 Table 12 Market-Rate Housing Value Estimate for Alternative 2 Average Monthly Rent Per Square Foot (1)$4.00 Average Unit Size (rounded) (2)850 Monthly Gross Revenue Per Unit $3,400 Annual Gross Revenue Per Unit $40,800 Expense Ratio 30% Net Operating Income $28,560 Capitalization Rate 4.5% Unit Value (rounded)$635,000 (1) Based on review of apartment project rents in Cupertino. (2) Average unit size provided by project applicant. Average Monthly Rent Per Square Foot (1)$4.00 Average Unit Size (rounded) (2)780 Monthly Gross Revenue Per Unit $3,120 Annual Gross Revenue Per Unit $37,440 Expense Ratio 30% Net Operating Income $26,208 Capitalization Rate 4.5% Unit Value (rounded)$582,000 (1) Based on review of apartment project rents in Cupertino. (2) Average unit size provided by project applicant. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 14 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 13 Below Market-Rate Housing Value Estimate for Alternative 1 Unit Distribution Very Low Income 27% Low Income 73% Average Income (1) Very Low Income $39,100 Low Income $63,400 Annual Maximum Rent (2) Very Low Income $11,730 Low Income $19,020 Net Operating Income (net of 30% expense ratio) Very Low Income $8,211 Low Income $13,314 Weighted Average $11,943 Capitalized Value of Net Operating Income (5% Capitalization Rate)$238,861 (1) Average annual income is based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development income limits for Santa Clara County; the project is assumed to consist 50 percent 1-person and 50 percent of 2-person households at both low and very low income levels. Sources: Department of Housing and Community Development, Countywide income limits for June 6, 2016. (2) Assumes annual rent maximum at 30% of gross income. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 15 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 14 Below Market-Rate Housing Value Estimate for Alternative 2 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF In 2004, the State of California adjusted the method for sharing VLF with local jurisdictions. Recent State budget changes replaced the VLF with property tax, which grows proportionately with increases in assessed value of the City. The proposed project will add about 1.9 to 2.0 percent to the current assessed value in Cupertino (assuming no other assessed value growth for simplification purposes) and will generate the same increased percentage in in-lieu VLF revenues (see Table 9 and Table 10). Property Transfer Tax The project will generate real estate transfer tax revenue associated with future turnover in ownership. This analysis assumes that ownership of all land use types will turnover every 25 years, an annual turnover rate of 4 percent.6 The property transfer tax rate accruing to the City General Fund is $0.55 per $1,000 of the property value, as shown in Table 15 and Table 16. 6 For institutional investors of commercial real estate a typical holding period is five to seven years (Ciochetti and Fisher, 2002). This analysis assumes a significantly longer holding period due to the property tax benefits of long-term ownership in California. Unit Distribution Very Low Income 45% Low Income 55% Average Income (1) Very Low Income $39,100 Low Income $63,400 Annual Maximum Rent (2) Very Low Income $11,730 Low Income $19,020 Net Operating Income (net of 30% expense ratio) Very Low Income $8,211 Low Income $13,314 Weighted Average $11,018 Capitalized Value of Net Operating Income (5% Capitalization Rate)$220,353 (1) Average annual income is based on State of California Department of Housing and Community Development income limits for Santa Clara County; the project is assumed to consist 50 percent 1-person and 50 percent of 2-person households at both low and very low income levels. Sources: Department of Housing and Community Development, Countywide income limits for June 6, 2016. (2) Assumes annual rent maximum at 30% of gross income. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 16 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 15 Property Transfer Tax Revenue for Alternative 1 Table 16 Property Transfer Tax Revenue for Alternative 2 Item Annual Total at Buildout Property Value Retail $600 Per Square Foot $25,200,000 Market-Rate Rental $635,000 Per Unit $341,630,000 Below Market Rate Rental $238,861 Per Unit $16,003,680 Movie Theater/Community Center $500 Per Square Foot $15,750,000 Total $398,583,680 Average Annual Turnover Retail 4.0%$1,008,000 Market-Rate Rental 4.0%$13,665,200 Below-Market-Rate Rental 4.0%$640,147 Movie Theater/Community Center 4.0%$630,000 Total $15,943,347 Property Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 in value $8,769 Assumption / Factor Item Annual Total at Buildout Property Value Retail $600 Per Square Foot $25,200,000 Market-Rate Rental $582,000 Per Unit $133,860,000 Below Market Rate Rental $220,353 Per Unit $8,814,120 Movie Theater/Community Center $500 Per Square Foot $15,750,000 Total $419,624,120 Average Annual Turnover Retail 4.0%$1,008,000 Market-Rate Rental 4.0%$5,354,400 Below-Market-Rate Rental 4.0%$352,565 Movie Theater/Community Center 4.0%$630,000 Total $16,784,965 Property Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 in value $9,232 Assumption / Factor Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 17 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Transient Occupancy Tax The hotel component of the Alternative 2 project is expected to help satisfy strong lodging demand in the local market. Consistent with the GPA application, this analysis assumes the 170 hotel rooms planned for the project achieve an average daily room rate of $200 and that the hotel stabilizes at 70 percent occupancy. The estimate of TOT is calculated by applying the current rate of 12 percent to the total room revenue generated by new hotel, as shown in Table 17. Table 17 Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue for Alternative 2 Utility Tax The City of Cupertino collects tax revenue on utility charges for services provided in the City. New residents and employees will expand the use of utilities in the City. This analysis estimates an average monthly utility expense of $95 per resident and $150 per employee. The City of Cupertino collects 2.4 percent of utility charges. Table 18 and Table 19 presents utility user tax revenue attributable to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 at buildout. Item Assumptions Annual Total at Buildout Hotel Rooms 170 Average Daily Room Charge $200 Average Occupancy 70% Average Annual Revenue $8,687,000 Total TOT Revenue 12.0%$1,042,440 % of Total Citywide FY2016-17 TOT Revenue (illustrative)15.5% Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 18 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 18 Utility User Tax Revenue for Alternative 1 Table 19 Utility User Tax Revenue for Alternative 2 Revenues from Other Taxes and Fees In addition to the key revenues described above, other taxes and fees are estimated to be generated by the project. Specifically, EPS forecasts additional business-to-business sales for office uses, new franchise fees, and new business license revenues generated by commercial activity associated with the project. This analysis assumes that office uses generate an average of roughly $20 per square foot in business-to-business sales, which translates to $0.20 per Annual Total at Buildout Residential Total Residential Population 1,177 Residents Monthly Utility Cost $95 per resident per month Annual Total $1,341,210 Commercial Total Employees 134 employees Monthly Utility Cost $150 per employee per month Annual Total $240,545 Total Annual Utility Expenses $1,581,755 Utility User Tax Revenue 2.4%of utility bill $37,962 Assumption Annual Total at Buildout Residential Total Residential Population 520 Residents Monthly Utility Cost $95 per resident per month Annual Total $592,800 Commercial Total Employees 1,424 employees Monthly Utility Cost $150 per employee per month Annual Total $2,562,545 Total Annual Utility Expenses $3,155,345 Utility User Tax Revenue 2.4%of utility bill $75,728 Assumption Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 19 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx square foot in sales tax revenue.7 This assumption is reflective of a typical office tenant in the Silicon Valley. Franchise fee revenue and business license revenue reflect averages derived from City budget documents (see Table 6). Table 20 and Table 21 presents forecasting assumptions and revenue estimates. Table 20 Revenue from Other Taxes and Fees for Alternative 1 Table 21 Revenue from Other Taxes and Fees for Alternative 2 7 Business-to-business sales and tax revenue estimates reflect the findings of prior EPS analyses conducted in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Item Annual Total at Buildout Franchise Fees (1)$38.21 per service population 1,243 service pop.$47,510 Business License (1)$17.67 per employee 134 employees $2,362 Subtotal $49,872 Allocation Factor Project Characteristic (1) Franchise Fee and Business License allocation factors are both based on existing general fund revenue per capita. Item Annual Total at Buildout Business-to-Business Sales Tax $0.20 per square foot of office 280,000 square feet $56,000 Franchise Fees (1)$38.21 per service population 1,232 service pop.$47,071 Business License (1)$17.67 per employee 1,424 employees $25,161 Subtotal $72,232 Allocation Factor Project Characteristic (1) Franchise Fee and Business License allocation factors are both based on existing general fund revenue per capita. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 20 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx General Fund Expenditures This fiscal analysis estimates the costs attributable to population and employment growth by characterizing how expenses will change for each City department. For some departments, population and employment growth in the City will not dramatically alter operations. For example, administrative functions in the City are not likely to scale up significantly to accommodate new projects. Alternatively, departments that provide services directly to residents and businesses likely will increase their operations and costs to accommodate new population. It is important to note that a range of external factors may influence responses to growth and cost effects in the future. Examples of factors that are beyond the control of the City and its departments that may act to magnify or reduce department costs over time include the following:  regional growth  technology  state and federal policies  environmental factors This study does not speculate regarding the potential effects of such exogenous influences on the general fund expense budget. It focuses only on those factors attributable directly to the population growth, employment growth, and land use changes generated by the proposed GPA. The fiscal analysis model relies on categorization of the likely budgetary response to population and employment growth for each department. The anticipated response to growth is expressed for fiscal modeling purposes in terms of “fixed expenses” and “variable expenses” within the department budget. The fixed expenses are the portion of a City department’s budget which is not affected by population and employment growth. Even a department which is anticipated to grow largely in step with the City’s service population likely would have some fixed cost. For example, in most cases each department has only one director position, which is a fixed expense for the department. While the department may increase staffing to accommodate growth, the department will not add another director. The variable expenses of a department are those that do increase with growth. As the City grows, increased demand for services requires some departments to scale up operations to meet new demand. The portion of a department’s budget that scales up is identified as the variable share of the budget. EPS uses a per-capita average cost approach to estimate department costs attributable to new residents and workers. The variable portion of each department budget is used to determine the per-capita cost, as shown in Table 22 and Table 23. Then, to determine the new General Fund expenditures generated by the proposed project, the per-capita factors are multiplied by the projected increase in service population or population, as appropriate. Innovation and Technology and Non-Departmental expenditures are not estimated because the project is not expected to generate new ongoing costs to these service providers. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 21 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 22 FY2016-17 Expenditure Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors for Alternative 1 Item City General Fund Expenses (FY2016-17) Percent Variable (1) Annual Variable Expenses Per Capita General Fund Expense Project Population/ Service Population Annual Total at Buildout General Government (2)$11,341,627 10%$1,134,163 75,892 Service Pop.$14.94 1,243 $18,581 Police (3)$11,884,384 90%$10,695,946 75,892 Service Pop.$140.94 1,243 $175,230 Innovation and Technology (4)$924,006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Recreation & Community Services $10,484,573 75%$7,863,430 58,917 Population $133.47 1,177 $157,023 Planning & Community Development $10,273,323 50%$5,136,661.50 75,892 Service Pop.$67.68 1,243 $84,153 Public Works (5)$19,343,167 75%$14,507,375 75,892 Service Pop.$191.16 1,243 $237,672 Non-Departmental $12,971,373 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Expenditures $77,222,453 $672,659 (1) Percentage of costs that are population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges. (2) Includes Administration, Administrative Services, and Council and Commissions. (4) Formerly known as Public Affairs and includes services such as videography, applications, IT and GIS. Sources: City of Cupertino FY 2016/17 Adopted Budget Estimating Factors (3) Reflects the contract portion of the police department's budget. To the extent the cumulative effect of new growth triggers the contract terms exceeding the cap agreed upon in 2014, the cost impact may be above that estimated based on the average cost approach. (5) Includes administration, environmental programs, development services,service center, grounds, streets, trees and right of way, facilities and fleet, transportation, and other programs. Memorandum July 17, 2017 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 22 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 23 FY2016-17 Expenditure Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors for Alternative 2 Item City General Fund Expenses (FY2016-17) Percent Variable (1) Annual Variable Expenses Per Capita General Fund Expense Project Population/ Service Population Annual Total at Buildout General Government (2)$11,341,627 10%$1,134,163 75,892 Service Pop.$14.94 1,232 $18,409 Police (3)$11,884,384 90%$10,695,946 75,892 Service Pop.$140.94 1,232 $173,609 Innovation and Technology (4)$924,006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Recreation & Community Services $10,484,573 75%$7,863,430 58,917 Population $133.47 520 $69,402 Planning & Community Development $10,273,323 50%$5,136,661.50 75,892 Service Pop.$67.68 1,232 $83,375 Public Works (5)$19,343,167 75%$14,507,375 75,892 Service Pop.$191.16 1,232 $235,474 Non-Departmental $12,971,373 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Expenditures $77,222,453 $580,269 (1) Percentage of costs that are population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges. (2) Includes Administration, Administrative Services, and Council and Commissions. (4) Formerly known as Public Affairs and includes services such as videography, applications, IT and GIS. Sources: City of Cupertino FY 2016/17 Adopted Budget Estimating Factors (3) Reflects the contract portion of the police department's budget. To the extent the cumulative effect of new growth triggers the contract terms exceeding the cap agreed upon in 2014, the cost impact may be above that estimated based on the average cost approach. (5) Includes administration, environmental programs, development services,service center, grounds, streets, trees and right of way, facilities and fleet, transportation, and other programs. Memorandum July 17, 2016 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 23 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Fiscal Impact of Proposed Project Table 24 and Table 25 summarizes the fiscal impact of The Westport proposal for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, respectively, on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund, with forecasted revenues and expenditure estimates based on the methodology described above. The annual fiscal impact of the proposed Alternative 1 GPA is estimated at a deficit of about $21,000. The annual fiscal impact of the proposed Alternative 2 GPA is estimated at a surplus of $1.3 million. Table 24 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis –Westport Cupertino, Alternative 1, at Buildout (2017$) Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$148,000 Property Tax $276,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $131,000 Property Transfer Tax $9,000 Utility Tax $38,000 Franchise Fees $48,000 Business Licenses $2,000 Total Revenues $652,000 General Fund Expenditures General Government $19,000 Police $175,000 Recreation & Community Services $157,000 Planning & Community Development $84,000 Public Works $238,000 Total Expenditures $673,000 Net Impact on General Fund -$21,000 Memorandum July 17, 2016 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 24 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Table 25 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis –Westport Cupertino, Alternative 2, at Buildout (2017$) Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$150,000 Business to Business Sales $56,000 Property Tax $291,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $138,000 Property Transfer Tax $9,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $1,042,000 Utility Tax $76,000 Franchise Fees $47,000 Business Licenses $25,000 Total Revenues $1,834,000 General Fund Expenditures General Government $18,000 Police $174,000 Recreation & Community Services $69,000 Planning & Community Development $83,000 Public Works $235,000 Total Expenditures $579,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,254,000 Memorandum July 17, 2016 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 25 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Fiscal Impact of Existing Uses In order to quantify the fiscal impact of the existing shopping center located at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, the same fiscal methodology is applied to existing land use program as the proposed GPA. The site currently is occupied by commercial uses, including roughly 50,200 square feet of retail and 21,500 square feet of office. The existing shopping center provides a positive fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund of about $125,000 a year, as shown in Table 26. Table 26 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Westport Cupertino Existing Uses (2017$) Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$122,000 Property Tax $17,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $8,000 Utility Tax $9,000 Total Revenues $169,000 General Fund Expenditures Police $15,000 Planning & Community Development $7,000 Public Works $20,000 Total Expenditures $44,000 Net Impact on General Fund $125,000 Memorandum July 17, 2016 Westport Cupertino Fiscal Impact Review Page 26 P:\171000s\171072_CupertinoFIA\Deliverable\171072_WestportMemo_071717.docx Net Fiscal Impact Alternative 1 in the GPA proposal reflects a negative annual fiscal impact of approximately $146,000 on the City’s General Fund as shown in Table 27. Although net revenues are estimated to be $483,000 annually, an increase in General Fund expenditures of about $629,000 result in a negative net fiscal impact. The GPA proposal’s Alternative 2 reflects a positive annual fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund as shown in Table 28. The net increase in General Fund revenues from the project specified in Alternative 2 at buildout is estimated at roughly $1.7 million more annually than existing uses. The net increase in General Fund expenditures associated with the Alternative 2 project is estimated at approximately $535,000 more per year than existing uses. Net fiscal impacts for Alternative 2 are estimated to be $1.1 million annually. Table 27 Net Fiscal Impact Summary (2017$) of Alternative 1 Table 28 Net Fiscal Impact Summary (2017$) of Alternative 2 Revenue / Expense Category Alt 1. Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues $652,000 $169,000 $483,000 General Fund Expenditures $673,000 $44,000 $629,000 Net Impact on General Fund ($21,000)$125,000 ($146,000) Revenue / Expense Category Alt 2. Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues $1,834,000 $169,000 $1,665,000 General Fund Expenditures $579,000 $44,000 $535,000 Net Impact on General Fund $1,254,000 $125,000 $1,129,000 From:Caryl Gorska To:Catarina Kidd Cc:Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf; Aarti Shrivastava; David Brandt Subject:Re: Westport Cupertino (The Oaks) GPA proposal Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:12:27 PM Attachments:ATT00001.htm San Joe’s Urban Villages Plan Faces Transportation Obstacles.pdf Ms. Kidd, Thank you for your prompt reply. I did find what KT Urban states as the features that break the General Plan on page 5 of the “Westport Alternatives Narrative” pdf document. Please do send me *your* report when it is ready. I have to say, proposing a project so dense in this location is asking for trouble. For one, even though the parking garage entrance is located in the back, off Mary Ave, funneling cars into the tight garage entrance is going to greatly increase the backup of the already overburdened turn onto Mary from Stevens Creek. And regarding the value of the “Transit Center” (NOT included in the project!) across a pedestrian bridge over Hwy 85, I suggest reading the attached article about the less than successful Cottle Transit Village in San Jose. Here is one quote from the article: “Whenever pedestrians or bicycles have to cross an onramp to get to the station, it’s always a little bit of a hazard situation,” Golem says. “We need to think about how to enhance people’s feeling that it’s safe.” Not only is the prospect of walking over Hwy 85 to reach transit in the middle of the highway less than appealing, the location of the proposed terminal for the transit center in the Westport development doesn’t seem to be a comfortable walking distance for most uses. Would there be a study to estimate what actual ridership to San Jose might be? And what IS the status of the light rail plan on Hwy 85? I do hope the the City looks very critically and asks the hard questions about this project. Because on the face, it looks like starry-eyed wishful thinking *at best* by the developer. ~ ~ ~ In the spirit of full disclosure, this project IS in my back yard; I live at the Commons community just across Memorial Park from The Oaks. I’m also a supporter of Better Cupertino, and The Oaks is how I got involved. In early 2016, I received a postcard from KT Urban about their plan, which prompted me to attend my first ever City Council Meeting. As you know, The Oaks project was voted down by city council, and the developer wisely chose not to try to mount an initiative on the same ballot with Measure C and D (or they didn’t have enough valid signatures, I can’t remember). Vallco is not in my back yard, and I didn’t think would affect me all that much, but once I was involved and looked at the plans for The Hills at Vallco, I was shocked by its cynical dishonesty. I was also horrified to learn the amount of support the developer was getting from city staff, and the ridiculous amount of money the developer was willing to spend to buy supporters and fool the public. My story should be a cautionary tale for the Cupertino City government. If you go too far, the people rise up and revolt :>) Cupertino citizens are among the most highly educated people in our country, and it’s insulting to think they can be fooled so easily. Big developers and their government supporters so far have counted on the fact that most citizens are too busy working and raising children to pay attention to local issues other than schools. But two things have changed: the wretched excess of the Vallco project has mobilized a group that is not going away, and exists to educate their neighbors, one by one if necessary; and overdevelopment throughout the area is beginning to affect the daily lives of people to an extent that they are no longer ignorant. I hope that our city government is smarter than it has acted in the past, and begins to really think as the public servants they are. Regards, Caryl Gorska Total Control Panel Login To: catarinak@cupertino.org From: gorska@gorska.com Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. On Jun 13, 2017, at 7:19 AM, Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org> wrote: Hi Caryl, We are in the process of reviewing that proposal. The report outlining the project features that require an amendment to Cupertino’s General Plan is pending. I will forward you a copy when it’s ready. Catarina S. Kidd, AICP, Senior Planner City of Cupertino | Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3214 | catarinak@cupertino.org From: Caryl Gorska [mailto:gorska@gorska.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 8:14 PM To: Catarina Kidd <CatarinaK@cupertino.org> Subject: Westport Cupertino (The Oaks) GPA proposal From:Aarti Shrivastava To:Piu Ghosh; Catarina Kidd Cc:Benjamin Fu Subject:FW: Westport Cupertino plans are absurd Date:Monday, July 10, 2017 3:55:56 PM Aarti From: Lauren Sapudar Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:43 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>; David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Westport Cupertino plans are absurd From: Caryl Gorska [mailto:gorska@gorska.com] Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 2:29 PM To: Savita Vaidhyanathan; Steven Scharf; Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Barry Chang Subject: Westport Cupertino plans are absurd Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang; I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. Both of their proposals, (1) Alternative 1, mixed-use residential, and (2) Alternative 2, mixed- used office, completely ignore our General Plan, and do not face the reality of the increased traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups. If these proposals are allowed to go forward, you will be sending a message to all our citizens that the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community, or our quality of life. Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules, and come back with a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan. Thank you, Caryl Gorska Total Control Panel Login To: dpaul@cupertino.org From: gorska@gorska.com Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block gorska.com This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. From:Aarti Shrivastava To:Piu Ghosh; Benjamin Fu; Catarina Kidd Subject:Fwd: KT Urban Peoposal Date:Wednesday, July 05, 2017 7:42:08 AM Aarti Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org> Date: July 3, 2017 at 7:58:17 AM PDT To: Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: KT Urban Peoposal From: jill@blueboxer.com [mailto:jill@blueboxer.com] Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2017 11:58 AM To: City Council Subject: KT Urban Peoposal To Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Cupertino City Council Members... I am writing to request that the Cupertino City Council vote to approve the General Plan Amendment Authorization that will permit KT Urban to proceed with the development submittal process for Westport Cupertino. Please permit their project to " go through the gate " and into the regular planning process on Tuesday August 1st. I have lived in Cupertino for 38 years and have always regretted that there has never been a downtown. The library/civic center area, as well as the tiny town of Monta Vista could have been turned into a downtown area, but that never happened. The Oaks site could have the potential to become such a location. As it stands now, the Oaks, once a great place to visit, doesn't have much to offer anymore. I'd love to have a fun destination to walk or bike to for a " town center " experience. Restaurants, retail shops, a state-of-the-art movie theater would all be revitalizing for " Cupe Town ". I was very disappointed that plans for Valco's redevelopment fell through. I'm hoping that something wonderful can work out for the Oaks. Respectively submitted, Jill Murray 21742 Columbus Avenue, Cupertino From:Aarti Shrivastava To:Piu Ghosh; Catarina Kidd Cc:Benjamin Fu Subject:FW: Westport Cupertino (Oaks Shopping Center) Date:Monday, July 10, 2017 3:56:18 PM Aarti From: Lauren Sapudar Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:30 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>; David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Westport Cupertino (Oaks Shopping Center) From: Linda Goldsworthy [mailto:lindag212@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 9:39 AM To: City Council Subject: Westport Cupertino (Oaks Shopping Center) July 7, 2017 Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan Council Members citycouncil@cupertino.org Regarding: Westport Cupertino (The Oaks) Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members, I have been a resident in Cupertino for 46 years and living in my present home for 43 years. Cupertino has gone through a lot of changes the past few years. The Oaks has been a part of this community but it is not the same anymore. Most of the stores are empty now and it is time for something new. I have seen the plans for the Oaks and truly believe the new development will bring a great deal to our area. The design will be pleasing to the eye and great place to wander through on a nice day or evening and stopping to have dinner or a nice drink. I hope you will approve the plans and help improve this area. Sincerely, Linda Goldsworthy Total Control Panel Login To: citycouncil@cupertino.org From: lindag212@comcast.net Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Block this sender Block comcast.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. 7/19/17 5:23 PM • Public comment p steele.docx 2804 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clara, CA 95054 T 408.727.9600 F 408.988.6340 www.newmarkccarey.com June 12, 2017 The Hon. Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor Members of the Cupertino City Council Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: citycouncil@cupertino.org Cupertino City Council: With over 35 years of commercial real estate experience in Silicon Valley with a focus in the West Valley office market, Cupertino has lost out on many corporate user opportunities (and tax dollars) due to a lack of new Class A office space in the City over the past 5-7 years. Other neighboring cities like Santa Clara, West San Jose, Sunnyvale and Mountain View have benefited and landed major tenants such as Amazon, Apple, LinkedIn, and Splunk, to name a few, as Cupertino was skipped over as these corporate tenants were not able to lease space (with expansion needs) in the City due to minimal inventory of Class A office space. As a result, this has created more “commute” traffic through Cupertino to these neighboring cities and lost tax dollars spent by employees who could both work and live in the city limits. The current Cupertino office vacancy as of Q1 2017 is 2.68% with 172,000sf available (72,000sf is sublease space) with a total base of 7.15 million square feet. The Oaks site (to be called Westport Cupertino) is an optimum location for a corporate campus mixed-use setting, strategically located on Stevens Creek Blvd @ Hwy 85, at a highly visible site at the “gateway” into the City of Cupertino. KT Urban is now proposing 2 alternative developments for either a Mixed-Use Residential project (Alternate 1) to meet the demand for more housing units in Cupertino OR Mixed-Use Gateway project (Alternate 2) to attract a corporate user in a “live, work, play” campus environment in Cupertino. • Alternative 2: Mixed Use Gateway: o Class A Office Building (280 K sf.) o Flagship Hotel (170 rooms) o Residential: 270 units, including 70 Senior Units; 20% affordability rate o Retail – 69,500sf 7/19/17 5:23 PM • Public comment p steele.docx In order to attract a corporate user to consider a location in Silicon Valley, the key criteria that tenants demand to recruit and retain employees (especially engineers to compete or align with Apple, Amazon & Google) are as follows: a) Easy 280/85 access with close proximity to SJC/SFO airports, especially for corporate CEO’s and executives who are located in Los Altos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park or further up the Peninsula. b) Mixed use campus environment to include Class A high-rise Office space with 30,000-40,000 sf floor plates c) On-site parking (min. 3.5/1000 ratio) d) Transit Hub - access to public transportation (VTA/shuttle service to Caltrain) e) Freeway signage/visibility (Corporate identity/branding) f) On-site amenities to include fitness center, outdoor collaborative space, restaurants/food services, retail services (salon, coffee shop) business/financial services) in a “walkable” and bike friendly environment. g) On-site housing - this helps with recruitment and retention of employees; shorter commute (time savings; more production at work). h) Hotel rooms with conference center to accommodate clients and visitors I believe that the City Council needs to give Westport Cupertino serious consideration for its redevelopment plans as a “Mixed-Use Gateway” project to create a higher and better use for this site, enable growth in the local economy, improve quality of life for its residents, and to stay competitive as a “business friendly” city in Silicon Valley. Given its strategic location, architectural design and site layout to attract corporate tenants, new retail businesses, a landmark hotel with conference center, and residents who can “work, live, play” in a single campus setting, Westport Cupertino will leave a “greener” footprint that the Cupertino community can benefit from over the long term. Regards, Patty Steele Senior Managing Director CA RE License #00839635 psteele@newmarkccarey.com T 408.982.8463 From: Ravi Kumar [mailto:ravi4biz@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:42 AM To: City Council Subject: Request to Deny KT Urban’s applications Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang; I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. Both of their proposals, (1) Alternative 1, mixed-use residential, and (2) Alternative 2, mixed-used office, completely ignore our General Plan, and do not face the reality of the increased traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups. If these proposals are allowed to go forward, you will be sending a message to all our citizens that the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community or our quality of life. Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules, and come back with a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan. Regards, Ravi -- Ravi Kumar Mobile - 408-821-2481 From: Rich Altmaier [mailto:richalt2@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 4:28 PM To: City Council Cc: Rich Altmaier Subject: The Oaks Westport project - support Dear City Council, I strongly support the Westport proposals. We are in critical need of revitalization of a too nearly dead mall in this part of Cupertino. The design approach of urban hybrid is clearly the way to go. I can see this proposal creating an exciting area, much as Mainstreet Cupertino and Santana Row in San Jose! Although grumpy old people may complain about change, I am one old person who has seen the potential of the urban hybrid. I love the suburban feel of Arlington, VA in the Wilson Blvd/Fairfax Dr corridor, with 20 story apartments/condos leaving an entirely open and suburban feeling. Good design is entirely possible! Also the plan hinting at a transit center over Highway 85 is a "wow" idea! Thank you, Rich Altmaier Cupertino, CA From: Christina Armstrong [mailto:christina@nextwave.net] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:16 PM To: City Council Subject: on August 1.:deny authorization to KT Urban's GPA application for The Oaks Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang; I strongly request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. Their concrete urban vision for the Oaks is not what I want built within walking distance from my house. Both of their proposals would cause more traffic in and around neighborhood streets, Cars would take alternate routes to avoid the traffic congestion. Plans (1) Alternative 1, mixed-use residential and (2) Alternative 2, mixed-used office, completely ignores our General Plan. The voters have turned down similar proposals both in public meetings and at the voter box. Voters have spoken and we did not multi-store building industrial park crammed into the Monta Vista area of Cupertino. Please convey to KT Urban that they need to adhere to the rules and regulations of the General Plan. Regards, Christina Armstrong From: Ashwini Dwarakanath [mailto:ashwini.dwarakanath@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 8:52 PM To: City Council Subject: deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang; I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. Both of their proposals, (1) Alternative 1, mixed-use residential, and (2) Alternative 2, mixed- used office, completely ignore our General Plan, and do not face the reality of the increased traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups. If these proposals are allowed to go forward, you will be sending a message to all our citizens that the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community, or our quality of life. Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules, and come back with a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan. Best Regards, Ashwini (Cupertino resident and homeowner) From: Karim Shariff [mailto:k.shariff@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 3:35 PM To: City Council Subject: Please don't convert the Oaks Center into a hotel. Dear Council Members: My name and address is: Karim Shariff 10160 Firwood Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 De Anza Oaks Community I writing to oppose changing the Oaks Shopping Center into a boutique hotel. For me, the Oaks Shopping Center represents a nearby place for a respite where I can go, however I am dressed to get a reasonably priced bite to eat at Hobbee's, Chat House, or Jamba Juice and then sit on a bench or take a walk. The Oaks has a great ambience which is great for casual family relaxation and for students from the College to come and get a bite to eat, relax and socialize. I don’t believe that the hotel will be such a welcoming place and strongly oppose its building. Sincerely, Karim From: Peter Murray [mailto:psme.foothill@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 9:51 AM To: City Council Subject: Oaks Shopping Center revitalization TO: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan and Council I am writing to request that the Cupertino City Council approve the general plan amendment authorization that will permit KT Urban to proceed with the development submittal process for the Westport Cupertino project. Please permit their project to go through the gate and into the regular planning process at your Tuesday, August 1, 2017 meeting. I will be on travel and can not attend in person. My family has lived in Cupertino for 38 years and have always regretted that there has never been a downtown. Also, we enjoyed the close proximity of the Oaks Shopping Center. It is convenient to bike and walk to the Center. Over the years the complex has not attracted new businesses which are sustainable. It would be wonderful to have a new destination that is vibrant with businesses and a nice promenade to be able to meet with friends and neighbors. This destination hopefully will have restaurants, relevant retail shops, movie theater and an outdoor socialization/meeting area. The proximity of the proposed project to Highways 85 and 280 will support ease of access for ingress and egress. The Cupertino master plan speaks to having Stevens Creek Boulevard being a vibrant commercial area for the Cupertino residents. Just like in a major shopping center, to have large tenants at either end encourages and supports businesses between the two entities. I believe the residence of Cupertino including my wife and I should have the opportunity to review and provide comment during the normal development submittal process. Not permitting the Westport Cupertino project to proceed in review is the denial of community input for the future of our town. Respectfully, Peter F. Murray 21742 Columbus Ave. Cupertino, CA From: Paulette Altmaier [mailto:paulette@altmaier.us] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 4:13 PM To: City Council Subject: Support for WestPort alternatives I will unfortunately be out of the country for the August City Council meeting, so will not be able to attend to voice my support. This email is to express my strong support for the 2 proposals. I support both, and would be satisfied with either, and leave it to the Council to choose between more residences vs a hotel and some office space. We used to go to the Oaks regularly many years ago, but it is certainly totally out of date, unappealing, and a very poor use of land now. We can do so much more with this resource, located as it is right off of 85, and therefore ideally located to be revitalized with minimal traffic impact. Paulette Altmaier From: primadona1@comcast.net [mailto:primadona1@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 9:07 PM To: City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Westport Cupertino Dear City Council, Please include my e-mail as part of the public record. I urge the city council to allow KT Urban to proceed with the West Port Cupertino project through the public process with a formal development application, so everyone can review the two alternatives by the public, the planning commission and the city council. After a review the models and plans I noted that both featured much needed housing and shopping. I particularly liked the senior housing across from the senior center which is included in both their alternative plans. The Oaks Shopping center has been deteriorating for years and needs a makeover to revitalize the center. The hotel adds theaters and a gathering place. Both plans deserve to be looked at by the city. Donna Austin, Cupertino Resident of 40 years From: Kathy Smith [mailto:kathalyn_jean@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 9:08 PM To: City Council Cc: Councilmember Chappie Jones Subject: Westport Cupertino, Formerly Known as The Oaks Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Councilmembers Paul, Sinks, Scharf, and Chang: I have just reviewed the plans for the Oaks Shopping Center and to put it mildly, I am appalled. I am asking you to please deny KT Urban's applications until they can come up with a workable proposal that fits within the parameters of Cupertino's General Plan, and actually ties into consideration that humans, with real families will live in this project. Both of KT's plans - #1 and #2 violate the General Plan and do not take into consideration the HUGE increase in traffic at this junction that is already plagued with traffic congestion beyond anything feasible in this lifetime, with NO mass transit anywhere near this incredibly busy area. If these proposals are allowed to go through, you will be sending a message to all our citizens (and not just Cupertino citizens - ALL CITIZENS of the South Bay) that the Cupertino City Council isn't considering what the TAXPAYERS/CONSTITUENTS want in our community, nor are they thinking about OUR quality of life. Please send a strong message to KT that they not only need to adhere to the rules, but that they need to come back with a plan that falls within the parameters of the Cupertino General Plan. I suppose they plan on cutting down all the old growth trees on the property as well. I will be at the City Council Meeting August 1 and will stay as long as I can (I have a semi-disabled husband). I am a 40 year resident of the South Bay and a 60+ year resident of California, so I actually know a thing or two about developers and their plans. Thank you. Regards, Kathy J Smith From: Beth Ebben on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:18 AM To: Catarina Kidd Subject:FW: Cupertino: Oak Plaza re-development - Westport From the Planning Department’s general mailbox: From: Jay Kamdar [mailto:jay.kamdar@nexsales.com] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 3:53 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Subject: Cupertino: Oak Plaza re-development - Westport Hello Cupertino Council Members, City Manager and the Planning Dept. Team: I am a resident of Cupertino residing at 10080 Carmen Road since 1996. I was disappointed to see another business (Coffee Society) bite the dust at Oak Plaza. Time has come to redevelop Oak Plaza from grounds up. I received a flyer from the city that City Council will vote on August 1st to approve KT Urban's request to "Pass Through the Gate," and begin to work with the City Community Development Staff on a final proposal. I urge you to vote for the redevelopment of Oak Plaza. I have reviewed KT urban’s plans and two alternatives to redevelop Oak Plaza. Cupertino needs to grow with millennials and provide a great place to work, live and grow families. Currently Oak Plaza stands as an eyesore and what a waste of prime real estate that is not helping anyone. I like Westport development plans particularly Alternative 2 which brings a balance residential units, Office space and start-up incubation space and such. Please vote in favor and approve the plan leading to a good final proposal. Thank You. Please include this message as part of the public record. regards, Jay Kamdar (408) 831-3803 Direct (408) 831-3800 Main (408) 596-0338 Cell From: gary virshup [mailto:gvirshup@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 9:05 AM To: City Council Subject: Oaks redevelopment Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang; I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. Both of their proposals, (1) Alternative 1, mixed-use residential, and (2) Alternative 2, mixed-used office, completely ignore our General Plan, and do not face the reality of the increased traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups. If these proposals are allowed to go forward, you will be sending a message to all our citizens that the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community, or our quality of life. Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules, and come back with a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan. Regards, gary virshup 753 Stendhal Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 650/799 5774 (cell) 408/255-9954 (home) July 11, 2017 Cupertino City Hall c/o Cupertino City Council 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: Westport Cupertino Dear City Council Members, I have been a longtime resident of Cupertino, active in community affairs, including soccer coach, a Board of Director for the Cupertino Educational Endowment Fund (CEEF) and a De Anza graduate. I’ve watched our City grow and paid attention to the “Heart of the City” vision. The Westport Project (on the old Oaks site) seems to embody the “Heart of the City” goals. The location at Highway 85 off-ramp provides an ideal western edge across from De Anza College and the mixed use identified in Alternative 2, provides Office square footage that does not burden residential streets, the Hotel fulfills a needed hotel-room deficit and the Housing and Senior Residence cater to different age spectrums of our community. We live in one of the most dynamic regions of the country (even the world). It is unrealistic to believe that Cupertino can put its head in the sand or put a “no-growth” flag at the edge of the City Limits. With one of the largest and fastest growing companies in the world based in Cupertino, it is wiser to have a balanced and well thought out plan to address how our City will grow. To that end, it makes a world of sense to make an informed decision. It is my understanding that the City’s vote on August 1st is NOT to approve the proposed project, but rather to simply decide to study the plan. With all due respect to City process, how could any responsible municipal leadership elect not to better understand a project that literally anchors the western edge of the “Heart of the City” vision. I am writing this letter to express the feelings of what is too often the silent majority. Also, I do not want a handful of loud, malcontent, no-growth extremists to show up at a City Council Meeting and shout that they represent the feelings of the greater community, because they don’t. I respectfully request that the City do the intelligent thing and study the pros and cons of the Westport Proposal to better understand how it might benefit the entire City. My children received an amazing education in the Cupertino School System; as much as they enjoyed school, there was no way to keep them stagnant as 9th graders for the rest of their lives, instead we raised them to be the best, well balanced grown-ups they could be. I sincerely believe that Cupertino has that same opportunity, to grow in the right way. I thank you for the courtesy of considering my thoughts, like you, I love my City of Cupertino and want to see it be the best that it can be. Sincerely, Drew Arvay Cupertino Resident From:Aarti Shrivastava To:Piu Ghosh; Catarina Kidd; Beth Ebben Subject:Fwd: FW: Date:Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:21:39 PM Aarti Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org> Date: July 19, 2017 at 3:03:27 PM PDT To: Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <Davidb@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: From: Natalie Wong [mailto:nataliemaywong@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 2:57 PM To: City Council Subject: Dear Mayor Vaidhyanathan and Council Members Paul, Sinks, Scharf and Chang; I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council deny authorization to KT Urban’s GPA application for The Oaks on August 1. Both of their proposals, (1) Alternative 1, mixed-use residential, and (2) Alternative 2, mixed-used office, completely ignore our General Plan, and do not face the reality of the increased traffic congestion it would cause at a junction that is already plagued by traffic backups. If these proposals are allowed to go forward, you will be sending a message to all our citizens that the City Council is not considering what taxpayers/constituents want in our community, or our quality of life. Please send KT Urban a strong message that they need to adhere to the rules, and come back with a plan that falls within the parameters of our General Plan. Regards, Natalie Wong CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-2064 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:10/5/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Hearing to approve assessment of fees on private parcels for the annual weed abatement program Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Exhibit A-1 Assessment Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject:Hearing to approve assessment of fees on private parcels for the annual weed abatement program Conduct hearing and adopt Resolution No.17-073 providing for lien assessments and collection resulting from the abatement of public nuisances and potential fire hazards (weeds on private parcels) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: August 1, 2017 Subject Hearing to approve assessment of fees on private parcels for the annual weed abatement program Recommended Action Conduct hearing and adopt the Draft Resolution approving the assessment of fees on private parcels for the annual weed abatement program Discussion Chapter 9.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code requires property owners to remove or destroy weeds on their property for fire protection. The weed abatement process is in place to notify the property owners of this responsibility, authorize the County to remove the weeds if the property owner doesn’t, and allow the County to recover the costs of abatement. In addition, the Cupertino Municipal Code Section 16.40.480 requires property owners in the locally adopted Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area to maintain effective defensible space by removing brush, flammable vegetation and combustible growth when required by the fire code official due to steepness of terrain or other conditions. The Cupertino brush abatement program is a separate program from the County Weed Abatement Program and authorizes the County Fire Department to remove the brush if the property owner doesn’t and to recover the costs of abatement. This year there were no parcels on the list. The assessment process includes both the County Weed Abatement Program and the Cupertino brush abatement program. The process consists of eight steps that begin in November and go through August of each year. At this time the process is at Step No. 8 on the list. Attached is a copy of the draft resolution showing the list of properties on the Assessment Report. 1. County prepares a list of all properties that have been non-compliant in removing weeds in the last three years and provides that list to the City (Nov). 2. City Council adopts a resolution declaring weeds a nuisance and setting a hearing date to hear objections by property owners to having their name on the list (Nov-Dec). 3. County sends notice to the property owners on the list notifying them of the hearing date and explaining that they must remove weeds by the abatement deadline of April 30 or it will be done for them, and the cost of the abatement plus administrative costs assessed to their property (Dec). 4. City Council holds the hearing to consider objections by property owners and adopts a resolution ordering abatement (Jan). 5. County sends a courtesy letter to property owners on the list notifying them again of the abatement deadline and noting that they will work with the property owner to be sure the weeds are removed (Jan). 6. After April 30, the properties are inspected by the County to verify that weeds were removed and proceeds with abatement if the inspection fails. County makes a list of all costs associated with the abatement and provides that list to the City (June-July). 7. City notifies the property owners on the assessment list notifying them of the hearing date. (July-Aug). 8. City Council holds a hearing, notes any disputes, and adopts a resolution putting a lien assessment on the properties to allow the County to recover the cost of weed abatement (July-Aug). Fiscal Impact Any fees waived by the Council will be billed to the City by the County to cover their cost of servicing the property. Sustainability Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk Reviewed by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft Resolution B - Assessment Report RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL PROVIDING FOR LIEN ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTION RESULTING FROM THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES AND POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARDS (WEEDS ON PRIVATE PARCELS) WHEREAS, after due notice a hearing thereon was held at a regular meeting of the City Council on February 17, 2017, at which time the City declared the growth of weeds upon certain properties as described in City of Cupertino Resolution No. 17-017 to be a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, from evidence presented, both oral and written, the City Council acquired jurisdiction over and abated said nuisances; and WHEREAS, affected property owners were advised that a hearing would be held at the City Council meeting of August 1, 2017 providing for lien assessments and collection resulting from the abatement of public nuisances (weeds on private parcels); and WHEREAS, said hearing was held by the City Council at the time and place fixed for the receiving and considering of such report and proposed assessment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby confirm that the costs of abating said nuisances shall be as set forth on Exhibit A- 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof and said costs shall constitute a lien on the affected property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Agricultural Commissioner shall cause the amount of the assessments to be entered on the County Assessment Roll opposite the description of the particular property, which assessment so entered on the County rolls shall be collected together with all other taxes thereon upon the property at the same time and in the same manner, as general City taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and interest, and the procedures and sale in the case of delinquency as provided for City taxes. Resolution No. 17- Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of August, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 2017 Weed Abatement Program Exhibit A1 City of Cupertino Assessment Report TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 1 10531 Portal 316-30-102 Tang George & Tsao Jung Wei 10531 N Portal Ave CUPERTINO 95014-2447 $545.00 13003 2 21115 Gardena 326-08-058 Brown Maurice F & Mona T Trustee 1506 ObumCt CAMPBELL 95008-6418 $60.00 13003 3 21127 Gardena 326-08-059 Brown Maurice F & Mona T Trustee 1506 ObumCt CAMPBELL 95008-6418 $60.00 13003 4 21139 Gardena 326-08-060 Yu YukYEtAI 440 Bodega St FOSTER CITY 94404-3506 $60.00 13003 5 21151 Gardena 326-08-061 Padte Yogesh V & Patkar Shilpa V 21151 GardenaDr CUPERTINO 95014-1617 $60.00 13003 6 21163 Gardena 326-08-062 Chan Wallace C & Helene W Trustee 21326 Amulet Dr CUPERTINO 95014-1301 $60.00 13003 7 21177 Gardena 326-08-063 Chen Alex T Et Al 21177 Gardena Dr CUPERTINO 95014-1617 $60.00 13003 8 10047 Crescent 326-16-027 Guthrie Gerald D Trustee 1004 7 Crescent Rd CUPERTINO 95014-1050 $60.00 13009 9 20804 Garden Gate 326-30-038 Mehta Apurva B Et Al 19111 Barnhart Ave CUPERTINO 95014 $60.00 13003 10 10355 Beardon 326-30-068 Lee Shihann & Lin Chiahsun 10355 Beardon Dr CUPERTINO 95014-1927 $60.00 13003 11 10337 Glencoe 326-30-083 Andrews Joyce H Trustee 20643 Cheryl Dr CUPERTINO 95014-2909 $60.00 13003 12 10467 Glencoe 326-30-106 Damask Robert T Po Box2421 CUPERTINO 95015 $1,188.32 13003 13 20944 Fargo 326-30-112 Lo Angeline Wah-yin & Henry Chan PoBox2935 CUPERTINO 95015 $60.00 13003 14 20731 Hanford 326-33-026 Zhang Zheng 31319 Santa Elena Way UNION CITY 94587 $60.00 13003 15 21189 Gardena 326-40-002 Lin Shen-an 2441 Chabot Ter PALO ALTO 94303-3543 $60.00 13003 16 21201 Gardena 326-40-003 Chu Nhan & Doan H 22351 Starling Dr LOS ALTOS 94024-7440 $60.00 13003 17 21239 Gardena 326-40-005 Chua H T Trustee 12410 Barley Hill Rd LOS ALTOS 94024-5235 $60.00 13003 18 21261 Gardena 326-43-036 Nguyen Trung V & Thanh T Trustee 21261 Gardena Dr CUPERTINO 95014-1619 $60.00 13003 Report Date: 7/17/2017 (List Sorted by APN) Page 1 2017 Weed Abatement Program ExhibitA1 City of Cupertino Assessment Report TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT IRA 19 10712 Pebble 326-43-044 Winget Charles M & Katherine B 10712 Pebble Pl CUPERTINO 95014-1333 $60.00 13003 20 10723 Pebble 326-43-045 Hoctor Kerry D & Janice G Trustee 10723 Pebble Pl CUPERTINO 95014-1333 $60.00 13003 21 10715 Grapnel 326-43-054 Sheppard Patrick J & Marina 10715 Grapnel Pl CUPERTINO 95014-1319 $60.00 13003 22 Stevens Creek 342-13-012 Deane & Deane Inc 4040 Moorpark Unit 116 SAN JOSE 95117-1851 $60.00 13026 23 10751 Stevens Canyon 342-16-064 Chandrappa Nagaraju K & Nagaraju 10751 Stevens Canyon Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3941 $60.00 13010 24 10744 Santa Lucia 342-16-073 Bangalore Manjunath S & Dixit 10744 SantaLuciaRd CUPERTINO 95014-3940 $60.00 13010 25 10701 Santa Lucia 342-17-056 Baum Peter 10701 Santa Lucia Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3939 $60.00 13010 26 22681 San Juan 342-17-079 Pandya Dushyant & Hetal K 22681 San Juan Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3932 $60.00 13010 27 10551 Santa Lucia 342-17-106 Jiang Joseph & Evelyn I 0551 Santa Lucia Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3970 $60.00 13010 28 22661 San Juan 342-17-110 Codding Nathaniel J & Michelle N 22661 San Juan Rd CUPERTINO 95014-0000 $60.00 13010 29 10875 Stevens Canyon 342-18-046 Namvar Parviz I Trustee 10905 Miramonte Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3971 $60.00 13010 30 11041 Stevens Canyon 342-19-002 Viray Properties Lie 1100 Zamora Ct MILPITAS 95035-3427 $60.00 13010 31 Stevens Canyon 342-19-003 Viray Properties Lie 1100 Zamora Ct MILPITAS 95035-3427 $60.00 13010 32 22765 San Juan 342-22-031 Hashemi Siamak & Nehawandian 22765 San Juan Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3934 $60.00 13010 33 10625 Cordova 342-22-103 Breinberg Steven A & Danna S 10625 Cordova Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3911 $60.00 13010 34 22744 Alcalde 342-44-026 Lettire James M & Alison M 22744 Alcalde Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3905 $60.00 13010 35 22772 Alcalde 342-44-047 Dhamdhere Neel & Kuniyo 22772 Alcalde Rd CUPERTINO 95014-0000 $60.00 13010 36 23026 Voss 342-50-016 Tsai Vicky Tsay-hsai Trustee & Et Al 23026 Voss Ave CUPERTINO 95014-2663 $545.00 13026 Report Date: 7/17/2017 (List Sorted by APN) Page2 2017 Weed Abatement Program Exhibit A1 City of Cupertino Assessment Report TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 37 LAND Voss 342-50-019 Chamberlain Jack T Trustee 655 Skyway Unit 230 SAN CARLOS 94070 $1,516.76 13026 38 McClellan 356-05-005 Pool Frog Investments Lie 19357 Zinfandel Ct SARATOGA 95070-6116 $60.00 13010 39 10750 Rae 356-07-076 Chang Chris Et Al 580 Alberta Ave SUNNYVALE 94087-0000 $60.00 13026 40 Rae 356-07-077 Chang Chris Et Al 580 Alberta Ave SUNNYVALE 94087-0000 $60.00 13026 41 21885 Hyannisport 356-13-050 Bergman Jacqueline 21885 Hyannisport Dr CUPERTINO 95014-4015 $545.00 13016 42 21542 Regn.art 356-23-040 Li Xuesong & Tu Yitsen 21542 Regn.art Rd CUPERTINO 95014-4819 $60.00 13016 43 21710 Regn.art 356-23-057 Anderson Caroline E Trustee & Et Al 22760 San Juan Rd CUPERTINO 95014-3935 $60.00 13016 44 21925 Lindy 356-25-014 Kanthappan Mohan & Nagarajan 21925 Lindy Ln CUPERTINO 95014-4810 $60.00 13016 45 21987 Lindy 356-25-031 Kang Ping Qi & Liang Yu Juan 2408 Clement St SAN FRANCISCO 94121 $60.00 13016 46 21989 Lindy 356-25-032 Sun Xi Hua & Zhu Shan 11801 Dorothy Anne Way CUPERTINO 95014-5137 $60.00 13016 47 22090 Lindy 356-27-021 Kalko Charles Z & Munoz Claudia L 22090 Lindy Ln CUPERTINO 95014-4835 $60.00 13037 48 11475 Canyon View 356-27-024 Ho Shyh-mei F & Fahfu 11475 Canyon View Cir CUPERTINO 95014-0000 $60.00 13037 49 22032 Lindy 356-27-025 De Kalpajit & Majumder Parama 22032 Lindy Ln CUPERTINO 95014-4811 $60.00 13037 50 22490 Palm 357-04-011 Cherukuthota Chandrasekhar & 22490 Palm Ave CUPERTINO 95014-2731 $60.00 13009 51 22310 Palm 357-04-023 Van Blommestein Robert & Stephanie 1144 Brace Ave SAN JOSE 95125-3200 $60.00 13009 52 10490 Foothill 357-04-048 George Georgie & Georgie Suja 10382 Westacres Dr CUPERTINO 95014-2939 $60.00 13009 53 10550 Mira Vista 357-04-077 Turner Paul J 10550 Mira Vista Ave CUPERTINO 95014-0000 $60.00 13009 54 21733 Alcazar 357-19-019 WongDavidJ 21733 Alcazar Ave CUPERTINO 95014-5929 $60.00 13009 Report Date: 7/17/2017 (List Sorted by APN) Page 3 2017 Weed Abatement Program ExhibitA1 City of Cupertino Assessment Report TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 55 20950 Stevens Creek 359-07-006 Bartels Properties Et Al 865 Cotton St MENLO PARK 94025-5610 $60.00 13003 56 10040 Bianchi 359-07-021 Lin Jason C 20940 Stevens Creek Blvd CUPERTINO 95014-2170 $60.00 13003 57 20940 Stevens Creek 359-07-022 Lin Jason C 20940 Stevens Creek Blvd CUPERTINO 95014-2170 $60.00 13003 58 20592 McClellan 359-18-010 Chang Lance C & Melody F 20592 Mc Clellan Rd CUPERTINO 95014-2955 $60.00 13002 59 20616 McClellan 359-18-048 Hardeman Melody F Et Al 20616 Mcclellan Rd CUPERTINO 95014-2955 $60.00 13002 60 20840 Cherryland 359-20-042 Cherryland Lie 20846 Dunbar Dr CUPERTINO 95014-1802 $545.00 13002 61 20852 Cherryland 359-20-044 Cherryland Lie 20846 Dunbar Dr CUPERTINO 95014-1802 $60.00 13002 62 1102 Steeplechase 359-31-038 Raju Karthik & Karthik lndumathi 1102 Steeplechase Ln CUPERTINO 95014-5817 $60.00 13002 63 20652 Cleo 362-31-002 Burrow Bradley J & Juanita S 20652 Cleo Ave CUPERTINO 95014-5033 $60.00 13002 64 No Situs 362-31-030 Almasi, Azita Trustee & Et Al 965 Laurel Glen Dr PALO ALTO 94304-1323 $1,654.56 13002 65 11835 Upland 366-03-056 Venkatesh Bhimachar 11835 Upland Way CUPERTINO 95014-5106 $60.00 13016 66 11841 Upland 366-03-062 Viray Properties Lie 1100 Zamora Ct MILPITAS 95035-3427 $545.00 13016 67 11845 Upland 366-03-067 Czisch Joseph E Jr Trustee & Et Al 4047 Transport St PALO ALTO 94303-4914 $60.00 13016 68 21730 Rainbow 366-37-007 Yao Jonathon Yi & Li Hong Yu I 029 Whiteoak Dr SAN JOSE 95129-3157 $60.00 13049 69 22045 Regnart 366-46-004 Bigler Robert A & Punita P Trustee 11230 Bubb Rd CUPERTINO 95014-4979 $60.00 13021 70 19982 Price 369-04-012 Shen Hsiao Ming Trustee 19982 Price Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3339 $60.00 13003 71 10375 Lindsay 369-12-012 Tung Charles C 10375 Lindsay Ave CUPERTINO 95014-4517 $60.00 13003 72 855 Brent 369-24-038 Donahue Paul P Estate Of & Et Al 855 Brent Dr CUPERTINO 95014-4552 $60.00 13003 Report Date: 7/17/2017 (List Sorted by APN) Page4 2017 Weed Abatement Program Exhibit A1 City of Cupertino Assessment Report TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 73 Bollinger 369-37-022 Lamonico Christina B Trustee 6672 Hampton Dr SAN JOSE 95120-5535 $60.00 13003 74 19160 Stevens Creek 375-07-001 Stevens Creek L P 1400 Parkmoor Ave Ste 190 SAN JOSE 95126-0000 $545.00 13134 75 10377 Judy 375-08-051 Peng James P & Anna K 20674 Acadia Ct CUPERTINO 95014-1756 $60.00 13134 76 19014 Tilson 375-09-008 Gau George & Wu Ma-Ii 13231 Montebello Rd CUPERTINO 95014-5408 $60.00 13134 77 18921 Barnhart 375-09-020 Chang Vincent Honping 18921 Barnhart Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3603 $60.00 13266 78 19031 Barnhart 375-09-034 Huang Hongmin & Kong Mei 1078 Wood Duck Ave SANTA CLARA 95051-4259 $60.00 13266 79 19071 Barnhart 375-09-038 Shen Hsiao-min & Joan-shu 19071 Barnhart Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3501 $60.00 13266 80 10200 Stem 375-12-002 Mc Grath Patrick W PoBox2422 PALO ALTO 94309-2422 $1,057.12 13266 81 18811 Arata 375-12-030 Xu Hongfei 18811 Arata Way CUPERTINO 95014-3670 $60.00 13266 82 18892 Arata 375-13-004 Chopra Aneet & Shikha Trustee 43844 Cameron Hills Dr FREMONT 94539 $60.00 13266 83 18824 Loree 375-15-020 Rangaswamy Gopi Krishna & 10585 Flora Vista Ave CUPERTINO 95014-1608 $60.00 13266 84 10337 Menhart 375-15-039 Horio Leland S Et Al 5878 Macadam Ct SAN JOSE 95123-4332 $60.00 13266 85 10415 Wunderlich 375-16-031 Gupta Anurag & Radhika Trustee 10415 Wunderlich Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3664 $60.00 13266 86 18770 Tilson 375-17-039 Martinez Richard D & Henrietta B 18831 Barnhart Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3601 $614.76 13266 87 10240 Calvert 375-18-022 Xing Pei & Wang Nadia J 10240 Calvert Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3808 $60.00 13266 I 88 10230 Calvert 375-18-023 Koch Alfred L & Downs-tinoco 10230 Calvert Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3808 $60.00 13266 89 18734 Loree 375-18-025 XingYuEtAI 18734 Loree Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3839 $60.00 13266 90 10291 Johnson 375-18-032 Fan Haichou & Kong Haiyan Trustee 10291 Johnson Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3811 $60.00 13266 Report Date: 7/17/2017 (List Sorted by APN) Page 5 2017 Weed Abatement Program ExhibitA1 City of Cupertino Assessment Report TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 91 10361 Johnson 375-18-039 Mc Grath Patrick W Po Box2422 PALO ALTO 94309-2422 $1,086.64 13266 92 10391 Johnson 375-18-042 Lu Ying-wu Et Al 1066 Saratoga Ave Unit 210 SAN JOSE 95129 $60.00 13266 93 18675 Loree 375-19-010 Ng Jenny Yu Zhen 18675 Loree Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3837 $60.00 13266 94 10160 Calvert 375-19-021 Jain Alok K & Shveta 10160 Calvert Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3806 $60.00 13266 95 10150 Calvert 375-19-022 Li Chester 6146 Bollinger Rd Unit 234 SAN JOSE 95129 $60.00 13266 96 10558 Gascoigne 375-23-006 Hsiang Ching Yun & Liu Chenyi 10558 Gascoigne Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3842 $60.00 13266 97 10550 Sterling 375-23-031 Biswas Amitava & Mousumi M 10590 Culbertson Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3556 $60.00 13266 98 10442 Sterling 375-23-044 Chen 1-i E & Shui-chan Et Al 10442 Sterling Blvd CUPERTINO 95014-3832 $60.00 13266 99 10424 Sterling 375-24-003 Attia Maged A & Bedair Ghada 842 San Petronio Ave SUNNYVALE 94085-3449 $60.00 13266 100 18615 Ralya 375-25-004 Chen Jing 18615 Ralya Ct CUPERTINO 95014-3823 $60.00 13266 101 18620 Ralya 375-25-014 Bianchi Jane W Trustee & Et Al 1458 Detracey St SAN JOSE 95128-4442 $60.00 13266 102 18630 Medicus 375-26-011 Lan Hsueh Ban 10360 Farallone Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3105 $60.00 13266 103 10560 Wunderlich 375-27-027 Manvi Rajendra & Suma 10560 Wunderlich Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3659 $60.00 13266 104 10544 Johnson 375-28-036 Zeng Gang Et Al 5255 Stevens Ck Blvd Unit 249 SANTA CLARA 95051 $60.00 13266 105 10740 Gascoigne 375-29-016 Faulkner Barbara Jeanne Et Al 10740 Gascoigne Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3846 $545.00 13266 106 18840 Newsom 375-30-019 Singamreddy Karunakar R Trustee 22228 Hammond Way CUPERTINO 95014-0000 $60.00 13266 107 10784 Johnson 375-31-003 WangYinan 10270 Tula Ln CUPERTINO 95014 $60.00 13266 108 10760 Johnson 375-31-005 Yu Henry 10760 Johnson Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3818 $60.00 13266 Report Date: 7/17/2017 (List Sorted by APN) Page6 2017 Weed Abatement Program ExhibitA1 City of Cupertino Assessment Report TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 109 10687 Gascoigne 1 375-31-016 Wong Yuk-chun Trustee 684 Wheeler Rd HAUPPAUGE 11788 $60.00 13266 110 10671 Johnson 375-31-049 Wesolowski Steven M Trustee 10338 Bonny Dr CUPERTINO 95014-2908 $60.00 13266 111 10630 Carver 375-32-020 Mc Grath Patrick W Po Box2422 PALO ALTO 94309-2422 $1,063.68 13266 112 18870 Tuggle 375-32-024 Dela Cruz Sherwin P L 18870 Tuggle Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3626 $60.00 13266 113 18832 Tuggle 375-32-028 Zhi Li Et Al 18832 Tuggle Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3626 $60.00 13266 114 18941 Pendergast 375-33-034 Tung David T Trustee 290 Florence St SUNNYVALE 94086-0000 $60.00 13266 115 18871 Hunter 375-34-057 Cho Dong Chui & Ok Bun 18871 Hunter Way CUPERTINO 95014-3610 $60.00 13266 116 10732 Morengo 375-35-059 Zhang Jianyong & Xiao Yan 10732 Morengo Dr CUPERTINO 95014-3515 $60.00 13266 117 10627 Culbertson 375-36-027 Mc Grath Patrick W 1184 Valelake Ct SUNNYVALE 94089-2032 $1,083.36 13266 118 10593 Johansen 375-37-053 Burtzlaff James L Po Box464 CUPERTINO 95015-0464 $60.00 13266 119 10623 Johansen 375-37-058 Wang Lieh C & Virginia S Trustee 6808 Leyland Park Dr SAN JOSE 95120-5616 $60.00 13266 120 19200 Tilson 375-40-061 Lee John C & Nguyen Ngoc 19200 Tilson Ave CUPERTINO 95014-3529 $60.00 13134 - TOTAL $19,380.20 Report Date: 7/17/2017 (List Sorted by APN) Page? CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-2033 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:10/4/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:8/1/2017 Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council8/1/2017 1 City Council8/1/2017 1 Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Report on Committee assignments and general comments CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/26/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™